DOJ-OGR-00006906.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The extracted text is: **Header:** Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 26 of 52 **Main Text:** situation here, in which the alleged "groomer" was not the person who perpetrated the alleged abuse. Even where the "groomer" and "perpetrator" are the same person, courts have recognized the unreliability of grooming testimony. United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020, at *2-3 (D. Md. July 24, 2012); United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010); United States v. Schneider; No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2010); see also United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); United States v. Burns, No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the "grooming theory" in the context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). The government tries to distinguish United States v. Raymond by saying that the expert's own book in that case "disavow[ed] [its] reliability . . . for legal use." Resp. at 14. But that is exactly the situation here, because the primary article on which the government relies—Exhibit A to its response—flatly says "that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard." Resp., Ex. A, p 19. The government says Rocchio's opinions are not "anecdotal." But that's not right either, as her endorsement makes clear: Rocchio's opinions are based "on her education and training on psychological trauma, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and sexual abuse [and her] extensive clinical experience treating individuals who suffered sexual abuse and trauma in childhood and adolescence," **Footer:** DOJ-OGR-00006906