DOJ-OGR-00007477.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 _ Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 28 The government hopes Dr. Rocchio will fill in the gaps in the accusers’ stories by lending the imprimatur of an “expert” to their allegations. The likely importance of her testimony to the government’s case cannot be overstated.* Dr. Dietz, who the government admits is supremely qualified, should be allowed to challenge the reliability of Dr. Rocchio’s opinions, explain why they lack support, and opine about their limits. See Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 211 F. Supp. 702, 707 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co. Inc., 311 F.2d 221 (2d Cir. 1962) (‘As in all cases, this sharp conflict between the experts must be resolved by the trier of the fact.’’). B. Hindsight Bias. The government appears to have two objections about Dr. Dietz’s opinions on hindsight bias: First, that the testimony improperly attempts to inform the jury what result to reach, and second that the testimony is “well within the ken of the average juror.” Mot. at 13-14. The government does not dispute the reliability of Dr. Dietz’s opinions, and as explained below, Dr. Dietz’s testimony is independently relevant and relevant in response to Dr. Rocchio’s testimony. The government’s first argument once again misunderstands Dr. Dietz’s point. Dr. Dietz’s opinion is about grooming. In his expert opinion, and at most, behavior can be labeled “srooming” only after the fact and retrospectively—that is, only after it is clear abuse occurred. Ex. 1, p 4-5. But the government’s burden in this case is to prove that, at the time the abuse allegedly occurred, Ms. Maxwell knew about it and intended to facilitate it. If Ms. Maxwell * So important are Dr. Dietz’s and Dr. Loftus’s opinions to the defense that the failure to consult with and call them as witnesses would amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. See Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588, 607-08 (2d Cir. 2005) (defense counsel was ineffective in failing “to call as a witness, or even to consult in preparation for trial and cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, any medical expert on child sexual abuse’). DOJ-OGR-00007477