mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007314.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "135",
    "document_number": "467",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 467 Filed 11/15/21 Page 135 of 158 135 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross\n1 not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct?\n2 A. That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the\n3 article.\n4 Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right?\n5 A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer\n6 an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here\n7 to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my\n8 areas of expertise.\n9 Q. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature\n10 is Exhibit 3. Is that right?\n11 A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done\n12 and not the most recent, nor is it the only.\n13 Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the\n14 government in support of your testimony here today?\n15 A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I\n16 gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's\n17 possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been\n18 talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would --\n19 certainly there have been articles published since that time.\n20 Q. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters\n21 study to move it forward, to validate it in any way?\n22 A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the\n23 moment no.\n24 Q. OK. Thank you.\n25 Exhibit 5 --\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007314",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 467 Filed 11/15/21 Page 135 of 158 135 LBAAMAX5ps Rocchio - Cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct?\n2 A. That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the\n3 article.\n4 Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right?\n5 A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer\n6 an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here\n7 to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my\n8 areas of expertise.\n9 Q. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature\n10 is Exhibit 3. Is that right?\n11 A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done\n12 and not the most recent, nor is it the only.\n13 Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the\n14 government in support of your testimony here today?\n15 A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I\n16 gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's\n17 possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been\n18 talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would --\n19 certainly there have been articles published since that time.\n20 Q. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters\n21 study to move it forward, to validate it in any way?\n22 A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the\n23 moment no.\n24 Q. OK. Thank you.\n25 Exhibit 5 --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007314",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "467",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007314"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}