DOJ-OGR-00007486.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 _ Filed 11/23/21 Page 21 of 28 The issues in this case, by contrast, are far from simple: accusers making allegations decades after the alleged events after reading, hearing, and speaking about the events with others, barraged by media coverage, and motivated by monetary gain. Most of the accusers have spoken publicly and all have received large settlements from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Their “memories” have changed dramatically over time and conveniently began to include Ms. Maxwell after retaining many of the same personal injury lawyers. None of the cases cited by the government comes close to the issues presented here. Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D., is a distinguished professor and preeminent expert on memory science, with extensive credentials and academic and research experience spanning decades. She has published more than 20 books and over 600 scientific articles and chapters, the majority of which focus on the subject of memory. She has been qualified as an expert and testified approximately 300 times in civil and criminal court cases and approximately 100 times during depositions. Like Dr. Rocchio, she would be testifying as a “blind” expert. Dr. Loftus will not testify about the credibility or lack thereof of any witness in this case nor will she testify about whether any particular memory of any witness is true or false or credible or mistaken. She will testify about how human memory operates, the nature of the process of remembering as a reconstructive process, and the factors that can cause memory distortion over time. Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification and memory has significantly evolved, catalyzed by reversals due to DNA exoneration.° In 2013, the National Academy of > See, e.g., United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306, 311-12 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting the view that, “since the 1980’s . . . expert testimony may be offered,” “on the subject of the psychological factors which influence the memory process) (citing United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308, 1313 (Sth Cir. 1986) (finding that “[i]n a case in which the sole testimony is casual 17 DOJ-OGR-00007486