DOJ-OGR-00007491.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 _ Filed 11/23/21 Page 26 of 28 occurrence can, under some circumstances, change a witness’s memory and even cause nonexistent details to become incorporated into a previously acquired memory”) (citing Fionna Gabbert, et. al, Memory Conformity: Can Eyewitnesses Influence Each Other’s Memories for an Event?, 17 Applied Cogn. Psychol. 533 (2003)), and United States v. Jordan, 924 F. Supp. 443, 449 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (where government’s case was largely dependent on witness’s memory testimony about the formation, storage, retention and retrieval of memories along with factors that influence the accuracy of memories expert testimony would be helpful to the jury). The government fails to provide compelling reasons to preclude the testimony of Dr. Loftus. The government’s bold statement that there is no evidence that “occurrences, suggestion, influences or the like” happened to any witness is this case is pure bolstering that is belied by the 3500 material. Dr. Loftus’s extensive experience, expertise, and proposed testimony is the right “fit” for this case. The Court should permit her expert testimony. CONCLUSION The government does not call into question Dr. Dietz’s and Dr. Loftus’s qualifications, nor does it meaningfully question the reliability of their opinions. Rather, the government claims their opinions invade the province of the jury or do not “fit” the case. A hearing is not necessary or appropriate to resolve the government’s arguments. And as explained above, these arguments fail on the merits. This Court should deny the government’s motion. Dated: November 12, 2021 Ze DOJ-OGR-00007491