DOJ-OGR-00016658.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * **Case Number:** 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * **Document Number:** 761 * **Filed Date:** 08/10/22 * **Page Number:** 175 of 246 **Case Information** * **Case Title:** LGVMAX5 **Transcript Information** * **Date:** 08/10/22 * **Time:** 09:00:00 * **Court:** SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. * **Phone Number:** (212) 805-0300 **Page Header** * **Page Number:** 175 of 246 * **Date:** 08/10/22 **Transcript** * **[At sidebar]** + MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one study out of hundreds and then going into it. + When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the objection saying, you know, we're not going to go into all of the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support of her testimony. + This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn't go to any of the opinions that she's offered in this case. + THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you remind me of the parallel objection. + MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and -- basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias. + THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her reliance on it; correct? + MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose **Footer** * **Document Number:** DOJ-OGR-00016658