mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011263.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "706",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 12\n\n\"'fit' the facts of the case\". \"Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 . . . exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.\" Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\nDr. Loftus has elsewhere testified that leading questions by the Government and response pressure can create suggestive memories. But at no time has the defendant elicited testimony from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, or Annie that they were asked such questions or subject to such pressure. Accordingly, testimony from Dr. Loftus on that point does not fit the facts of the case and has no probative value. It also would substantially prejudice the Government by suggesting to the jury—without evidence—that the Government or a therapist manufactured false memories in the Minor Victims. Dr. Loftus's opinion on suggestive activities therefore should not contain testimony about Government questioning or response pressure exerted by therapists.\n\nV. The Court Should Preclude Testimony from John Lopez About Undisclosed Exhibits\n\nFinally, the Court should preclude testimony from John Lopez about undisclosed exhibits. Lopez is expected to testify about financial records in the case. Although the defendant sent a letter purporting to notice Lopez as an expert witness in an abundance of caution, the Government understands from conferring with the defense that the defendant does not plan to elicit expert testimony from him.4\n\n4 The Government has also received no supplemental expert notice for Lopez. As the Government explained in its motion to preclude expert testimony from Lopez, the original expert notice was insufficient.\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00011263",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"'fit' the facts of the case\". \"Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 . . . exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.\" Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Loftus has elsewhere testified that leading questions by the Government and response pressure can create suggestive memories. But at no time has the defendant elicited testimony from Jane, Kate, Carolyn, or Annie that they were asked such questions or subject to such pressure. Accordingly, testimony from Dr. Loftus on that point does not fit the facts of the case and has no probative value. It also would substantially prejudice the Government by suggesting to the jury—without evidence—that the Government or a therapist manufactured false memories in the Minor Victims. Dr. Loftus's opinion on suggestive activities therefore should not contain testimony about Government questioning or response pressure exerted by therapists.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. The Court Should Preclude Testimony from John Lopez About Undisclosed Exhibits",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the Court should preclude testimony from John Lopez about undisclosed exhibits. Lopez is expected to testify about financial records in the case. Although the defendant sent a letter purporting to notice Lopez as an expert witness in an abundance of caution, the Government understands from conferring with the defense that the defendant does not plan to elicit expert testimony from him.4",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 The Government has also received no supplemental expert notice for Lopez. As the Government explained in its motion to preclude expert testimony from Lopez, the original expert notice was insufficient.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011263",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Carolyn",
      "Annie",
      "John Lopez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 706",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011263"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}