DOJ-OGR-00007488.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 _ Filed 11/23/21 Page 23 of 28 Admission of expert testimony rests with the discretion of the court. Exclusion of expert testimony, especially regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, has been deemed error resulting in reversals. See, e.g., supra note 5 & cases cited infra. The admission of expert testimony on the subject of memory, especially in sex abuse cases, has been prominent in state court, where most prosecutions regarding sex-based offenses are brought. In the last decade, for example, Dr. Loftus has given expert testimony regarding memory science in numerous sex abuse cases: People v. Weinstein (NY Cty, NY 2020) People v. Heely (San Fernando, CA 2019) People v. Dudley (Orange Cty, CA 2018) State v. Ross (Douglas Cty, Neb 2017) State v. Howard (Douglas Cty, Neb 2017) Doe v. Hosey (Spokane Cty, WA (2016) People v. Armstrong (Broomfield Cty, CO 2016) GM vy. LAUSD (Los Angeles, CA 2015) People v. Martinson (Denver Cty, CO 2014) State v. Carson (Tulsa Cty, OK 2013) People v. Manzanares (Broomfield Cty, CO 2013) People v. Barreto (Monterey Cty, CA 2012) People v. Tortorelli (San Bernardino Cty, CA 2011) People v. Wellen (Orange Cty, CA 2011) People v. Borbon (Orange Cty, CA 2011) Dr. Loftus’s testimony is based on decades of social science research that she personally conducted as well as upon the body of scientific research and literature in the field of memory science. In contrast, Dr. Rocchio relies on literature of others, mostly non-identified and some that do not support the science of grooming, and upon anecdotal reporting by patients engaged in talk therapy. Although Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory or neuroscience (as she admitted at her Daubert hearing, Ex. 2, p 121), the government intends to have her testify about the impact of 19 DOJ-OGR-00007488