DOJ-OGR-00005646.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 24 witness encroaches upon the jury’s vital and exclusive function to make credibility determinations and therefore does not ‘assist the trier of fact’ as required by Rule 702.) (citations omitted). Rocchio’s opinions on disclosure also contravene Rule 403 because they suggest that delayed reporting of child sexual abuse is more consistent with truthfulness than with fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself. Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at *6. That leaves the second half of Rocchio’s disclosure opinion: that memory and disclosure of traumatic or abusive events is impacted by a number of factors, including the circumstances surrounding the trauma. This opinion is so generic as to be meaningless. It is also a matter of common sense—how could anyone dispute that memory is “impacted by a number of factors”? Moreover, Rocchio is not an expert in the human brain or memory generally. And her opinion about when, why, and how alleged victims of sexual assault remember being assaulted suffers from all the same flaws discussed above: Rocchio doesn’t point to any data or studies validating her opinion; her opinions cannot be tested, reproduced, or meaningfully challenged; and her opinion is based on the self-reports of her own clients, who she assumes are telling the truth. II. Ata minimum, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing For all these reasons, this Court should preclude Rocchio from testifying in this case. At the very least, this Court should hold a Daubert to evaluate each of her proposed opinions. CONCLUSION This Court should exclude Rocchio’s proposed testimony or, in the alternative, hold a Daubert hearing. Dated: October 18, 2021 17 DOJ-OGR-00005646