DOJ-OGR-00005802.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 84 evidence, to evaluate what weight to give it. But that does not change whether Dr. Rocchio’s opinions are squarely within the mainstream of psychological practice. The defendant next argues that Dr. Rocchio’s patients are “self-selected,” and she has not established the “representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 7). But the defendant makes no argument that the minor victims in this case are distinctive in some way such that general principles of psychology may diverge as to them. And in any event, that argument is for the jury to evaluate, and not a basis to preclude Dr. Rocchio’s testimony. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 36:13-37:5, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting a defense attempt to distinguish between native-born and domestic-born women because, “while a court is to be a gatekeeper as to reliability so as to keep ‘junk science’ away from juries, the Court must not overstep that role. Whether or not the Court would be persuaded that adult native-born women can be subject to trauma bonding, the Court is not to arrogate to itself that judgment.) Finally, the defendant argues that Dr. Rocchio has no experience treating perpetrators of sexual assault, so she cannot testify as to the psychology of perpetrators and their “so-called ‘grooming’ techniques.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 7-8). Many of the opinions the defendant challenges concern the experiences of victims, not perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio will testify about the pattern to which “minor victims are often subject,” which makes “victims vulnerable to abuse,” and builds their “trust and attachment with their abuser.” (Expert Notice, Def. Mot. 3 Ex. 1 at 2 (emphasis added)). Grooming creates in the victims “a relationship of trust and attachment” that “can prevent victims from being aware that what they are experiencing is abuse and can prevent disclosure. (/d. 18 DOJ-OGR-00005802