DOJ-OGR-00008176.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document516 Filed 11/21/21 Page4of17 The Court will partially admit and partially preclude these opinions. Dr. Dietz may testify that Dr. Rocchio’s definition runs the risk of suggesting that innocent conduct is grooming and that the label “grooming” carries within it a subjective judgment of an alleged perpetrator’s intent. These opinions, when limited to a criticism of Dr. Rocchio’s definition of grooming, bolster Dr. Dietz’s opinion that grooming does not have a settled definition and is hard to measure. They are therefore relevant and admissible opinions. But the Court will preclude any opinion testimony that there is inadequate evidence of an intent to groom as applied to Ms. Maxwell. In particular, Dr. Dietz’s disclosed opinions that there is not “adequate evidence of either’ motive or intent, that grooming imputes intent “to the Defendant,” and that “there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder” into finding intent, all suggest that Dr. Dietz would testify that there is inadequate evidence of Ms. Maxwell’s intent. Notice at 3 (emphasis added). Testimony to that effect would plainly violate Rule 704(b). The Court therefore precludes these three aspects of Dr. Dietz’s opinion as well as any other testimony that would similarly go beyond criticizing Dr. Rocchio’s definition of grooming and instead suggest that there is inadequate evidence of intent in this case. Fourth, Dr. Dietz states that there is not empirical data on whether minors with particular vulnerabilities are more likely to be targeted by perpetrators of sexual abuse. /d. at 4. The Government responds that this opinion itself is unsupported in the academic literature. Gov’t Br. at 11. If experts disagree on the proper interpretation of evidence, “it is not the Court’s role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of one of the expert’s opinions.” Jn re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). The Court concludes that Dr. Dietz’s extensive experience in the field provides an adequate basis for this opinion criticizing Dr. Rocchio’s opinion. It therefore admits this opinion. DOJ-OGR-00008176