DOJ-OGR-00007475.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 _ Filed 11/23/21 Page10of 28 Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself,” Ex. 1, p 4, these are proper subjects of Dr. Dietz’s testimony because they form the basis of his principal responsive opinion: Dr. Rocchio’s opinions are unreliable generally and particularly in the context of this case. The Rules of Evidence are clear that an expert can inform the jury of the bases of his opinions. See Fed. R. Evid. 703. Second, the government claims that Dr. Dietz’s reasoning is “circular.” Mot. at 10. The government characterizes Dr. Dietz’s opinion as follows: 99 66s [I]t is circular to say that “grooming” “imputes motive and intent,” because grooming is defined to be a strategic pattern of behavior used to develop relationships of attachment and coercion between perpetrators and victims. That is, if the behaviors lack the requisite motive and intent, they are not grooming behaviors. Id. (citing Ex. 1, p 3). In an unconsciously revealing way, the government misunderstands Dr. Dietz’s opinion. The government’s objection to Dr. Dietz’s opinion is the very objection that Dr. Dietz has to Dr. Rocchio’s opinion. Dr. Dietz is critical of Dr. Rocchio’s view of “grooming” because it risks imputing motive and intent to innocuous conduct “without adequate evidence of either.” Ex. 1, p 3. Dr. Dietz proposes to identify this circular reasoning for the jury, so jurors can evaluate Dr. Rocchio’s testimony and decide whether it is worth of belief. The risk of imputing motive and intent is not abstract. After all, the government itself does so. In response to Ms. Maxwell’s Rule 412 motion, the government flat out said that “Te]vidence of grooming is evidence of intent.” Gov’t Resp. to Rule 412 Mot., p 7. 435, p 11). To the extent Dr. Rocchio offers testimony, however, addressing or implying “srooming-by-proxy,” (terminology aside, id. at 10), Dr. Dietz’s opinion is admissible as described herein. DOJ-OGR-00007475