mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012361.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "76",
    "document_number": "747",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 228 752 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct is not an expert on those topics and has not been proffered -- has not been offered as an expert on those topics. That is crossing the line. And it seems that this more proper; this would be an area where they are trying to explain, I think, why it's relevant to offer their own expert, as opposed to why they should be able to cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions. THE COURT: I'm having trouble in the abstract understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you? MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think we would. But I think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert. THE COURT: I've qualified her as an expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse. We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and, you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012361",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 228 752 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "is not an expert on those topics and has not been proffered -- has not been offered as an expert on those topics. That is crossing the line. And it seems that this more proper; this would be an area where they are trying to explain, I think, why it's relevant to offer their own expert, as opposed to why they should be able to cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions. THE COURT: I'm having trouble in the abstract understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you? MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think we would. But I think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert. THE COURT: I've qualified her as an expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse. We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and, you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012361",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "MS. POMERANTZ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 747",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012361"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}