mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014034.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "175",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 246 2470 LCGVMAX5 Loftus - cross 1 (At sidebar) 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this 3 is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one 4 study out of hundreds and then going into it. 5 When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a 6 study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I 7 think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the 8 objection saying, you know, we're not going to go into all of 9 the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support 10 of her testimony. 11 This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying 12 about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you 13 know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn't 14 go to any of the opinions that she's offered in this case. 15 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you remind me of the 16 parallel objection. 17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given 18 to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and -- 19 basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias. 20 THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative 21 evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her 22 reliance on it; correct? 23 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach 24 her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her 25 on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014034",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 246 2470 LCGVMAX5 Loftus - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(At sidebar) MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one study out of hundreds and then going into it. When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the objection saying, you know, we're not going to go into all of the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support of her testimony. This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn't go to any of the opinions that she's offered in this case. THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you remind me of the parallel objection. MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and -- basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias. THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her reliance on it; correct? MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014034",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Dr. Loftus"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014034"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}