Skip to content
Federal Criminal TrialtranscripttranscriptLisa Rocchio — Direct/Cross/Redirect - Day 4 - Federal Criminal TrialDr. Lisa Rocchio completed general expert testimony about traumatic stress, grooming, and delayed disclosure, with Judge Nathan sustaining objections that limited portions of the examination.
Maurene ComeyLara PomerantzJeffrey S. PagliucaAlison J. NathanLisa RocchioMs. PomerantzLisa RocchioJudge NathanMr. PagliucaMs. Comeydirectsidebarcrossredirect
Federal Criminal Trial/Day 4/December 2, 2021
4 pages·3 witnesses·2,708 lines
Dr. Lisa Rocchio completed general expert testimony about traumatic stress, grooming, and delayed disclosure, with Judge Nathan sustaining objections that limited portions of the examination.
Proceedings
Direct 1Lisa Rocchio — DirectLine 7
sidebarExpert-Testimony Scope SidebarLine 14
Direct 2Lisa Rocchio — DirectLine 7
CrossLisa Rocchio — CrossLine 1
RedirectLisa Rocchio — RedirectLine 1

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Good morning, Dr. Rocchio.

LISA ROCCHIO: Good morning.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is your profession?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm a clinical and forensic psychologist.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is clinical psychology?

LISA ROCCHIO: It's the study of human behavior and thought, both abnormal and normal.

MS. POMERANTZ: And what is forensic psychology?

LISA ROCCHIO: Forensic psychology is the application of the science of psychology to a particular legal matter or question.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, can you please describe your educational background.

LISA ROCCHIO: I have a bachelor's degree from Emory University, and I have a master's and a Ph.D. from the University of Rhode Island in clinical psychology.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you describe for the jury your course work and training in connection with your master's and Ph.D. degrees.

LISA ROCCHIO: So a doctoral program in clinical psychology, the one I attended, is what's called a scientist practitioner model. So I'm trained in both research methods and the practice of psychology. So through the course of my graduate training, I took courses in assessment methods, ethics, cognition, perception, forensic psychology assessment and treatment. And I also took courses in the specific methods to practice psychotherapy, so individual psychotherapy, marital therapy, for example.

MS. POMERANTZ: During the course of your graduate studies, what, if any, topics did you focus on?

LISA ROCCHIO: I focused on the general practice of clinical psychology, but in particular traumatic stress, forensic psychology, and eating disorders.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is traumatic stress?

LISA ROCCHIO: Traumatic stress refers to any event that overwhelms an individual's ability to cope. At the more severe end, as described in the DSM, which is a manual we use for diagnosis, it's defined as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious bodily injury, or sexual violence.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, during the course of your graduate studies, did you focus on the topic of interpersonal violence?

MS. POMERANTZ: And what is interpersonal violence?

LISA ROCCHIO: Violence is violence that occurs between one person and another. It doesn't -- it refers to things such as rape, sexual assault, battering, intimate partner violence, childhood sexual abuse, sexual harassment. It doesn't have to involve actual physical violence, but it's the umbrella term that's used to refer to assault and violence between two people or between individuals.

MS. POMERANTZ: What do you mean when you use the term "childhood sexual abuse"?

LISA ROCCHIO: Childhood sexual abuse is a term that refers to either attempted or actual engagement with a child, someone under the age of 18, in a sexual manner. So it can involve both physical contact, but it can also involve noncontact, such as exposure to sexual material, for example.

MS. POMERANTZ: And just to be clear, in your field, when you say "child," what are you referring to?

LISA ROCCHIO: Someone under the age of 18.

MS. POMERANTZ: In connection with your master's and Ph.D. degrees, did you perform clinical work with patients?

MS. POMERANTZ: Approximately how many patients did you work with during your graduate studies?

LISA ROCCHIO: During my graduate studies, I complete -- worked approximately 4,000 hours of supervised clinical hours with hundreds upon hundreds of patients.

MS. POMERANTZ: In the course of earning your graduate degrees, did you do a predoctoral fellowship?

MS. POMERANTZ: Where did you do your predoctoral fellowship?

LISA ROCCHIO: At the Yale University School of Medicine.

MS. POMERANTZ: During the course of your predoctoral fellowship at Yale, what kind of work did you do?

LISA ROCCHIO: So I worked for six months at Yale New Haven Hospital in a partial hospital program with adults. Partial hospital is a program where individuals come in for a higher level of psychiatric care; and they stay during the day, but they go home at night. And I worked there for six months. And then I worked for six months at Yale Psychiatric Institute in both an inpatient program and a partial program with adolescents.

MS. POMERANTZ: After you received your Ph.D., what did you do next in your career?

LISA ROCCHIO: I did a postdoctoral fellowship where I worked again under clinical supervision in a private practice setting. I also worked in a partial hospital program and taught classes at the college level.

MS. POMERANTZ: What issues did you focus on during your postdoctoral fellowship?

LISA ROCCHIO: Primarily I was working with individuals who -- women in particular who were chronically suicidal and self-injurious, had multiple problems in life, and the vast majority of whom had quite severe histories of childhood abuse, trauma, and neglect.

MS. POMERANTZ: And did that childhood abuse and neglect include childhood sexual abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, it did.

MS. POMERANTZ: After your fellowship, what did you do next in your career?

LISA ROCCHIO: I founded an independent practice.

MS. POMERANTZ: What kind of independent practice?

LISA ROCCHIO: So it's an independent group practice that focuses on providing assessment and psychotherapy services to adults, individuals, and children, where I employ other therapists who work for me, and I also maintain an independent forensic psychology practice.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is your role in the practice?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm the owner and the founder, as well as the clinical director.

MS. POMERANTZ: What do you do in that role?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm responsible for hiring all of the clinicians in the practice, for hiring and supervising the administrative and clinical staff, for providing clinical oversight, as well as consultation around clients. I see a full caseload of clients where I provide psychotherapy. And then I also conduct forensic work.

MS. POMERANTZ: Approximately when did you start that group practice?

LISA ROCCHIO: I believe it was around January of 1998.

MS. POMERANTZ: And can you briefly describe the work you do in connection with your private practice.

LISA ROCCHIO: So I provide treatment to patients, the vast majority of whom have experienced some form of traumatic stress. A large number have experienced sexual abuse during childhood. I also work with a number of individuals who have been in abusive relationships in adulthood or who've experienced rape and sexual assaults either in childhood or adulthood. And I work with other types of traumatic stress as well; traumatic grief, for example, parents who've lost a child, or people who've been involved in motor vehicle accidents. I've done work with first responders. So primarily traumatic stress, but also individuals coping with problems in living, someone's going through a divorce, someone is going through a life transition, anxiety, depression, that sort of thing.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you have a forensic practice?

MS. POMERANTZ: In your forensic practice, what sort of work do you do?

LISA ROCCHIO: So I work in both civil cases and criminal cases. And I provide expert witness testimony around issues in my area of expertise, as I'm doing today. Sometimes I also conduct psychological evaluations to answer a particular question that's relevant to the legal issue at hand.

JUDGE NATHAN: Dr. Rocchio, could I ask you to move a little closer to the mic.

JUDGE NATHAN: If possible. Thank you. Thank you so much.

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, can you explain for the jury at a high level what a forensic practice is.

LISA ROCCHIO: So an attorney will hire me and they will ask me -- they'll explain the issue that they need help with. It may be could I come in and talk about a subject that is within my area of expertise. It might be, for example, if somebody has claimed that they've been harmed, say, through childhood sexual abuse, they'll ask me to do an evaluation to determine whether or not the individual has any problems or mental health issues; and if they do, whether those problems and mental health issues are attributable either in whole or part to the abuse that they've alleged. In a criminal case I might be asked to determine what, if any, role an individual's mental health may have had or their traumatic experiences may have had on the crime that they are accused of. Or in sentencing issues I might be asked to do a psychological evaluation and provide information that might be relevant for purposes of sentencing.

MS. POMERANTZ: Approximately how many forensic evaluations have you conducted?

LISA ROCCHIO: I would say maybe around 100.

MS. POMERANTZ: And I think you touched on this, but just to be clear, who hires you for forensic work?

LISA ROCCHIO: The vast majority of the time I'm hired by an attorney. At other times I might be hired by the state. For example, at one point in my career the state of Rhode Island hired me to perform forensic evaluations on children and adolescents who had become involved with the juvenile justice department. But at this point the vast majority of individuals who hire me are attorneys.

MS. POMERANTZ: And are those attorneys on just the plaintiff's side or can you explain that for the jury.

LISA ROCCHIO: Sure. So when I'm working in a criminal arena, I might be hired by the prosecution or I might be hired by the defense. And if I'm working in a civil case, again, I might be hired by the person who's working on behalf of the plaintiff or the person who's working on behalf of the defense. As a forensic psychologist, I'm coming in and providing an independent evaluation. So I'll work for all sides of -- all parties of a case.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, what licenses do you hold?

LISA ROCCHIO: I hold a psychology license in the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York.

MS. POMERANTZ: In your career, for approximately how many years have you treated and assessed patients?

LISA ROCCHIO: About 30 years now.

MS. POMERANTZ: As a clinical psychologist, what issues or areas do you specialize in?

LISA ROCCHIO: I specialize primarily in the areas of traumatic stress and interpersonal violence.

MS. POMERANTZ: For how long have you focused on traumatic stress and interpersonal violence?

LISA ROCCHIO: The same, about 30 years.

MS. POMERANTZ: In the course of your career, have you treated and evaluated individuals who have experienced or reported experiencing childhood sexual abuse?

MS. POMERANTZ: Approximately how many victims of childhood sexual abuse have you evaluated and treated in the course of your career?

LISA ROCCHIO: Hundreds upon hundreds.

MS. POMERANTZ: For how many years have you treated victims of childhood sexual abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: For the duration of my career; so since starting doing clinical work and graduate work, again, about 30 years ago.

MS. POMERANTZ: During the course of your career, how old are the patients that you have treated and evaluated who've experienced childhood sexual abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: So I worked beginning in my graduate training with teenagers, adolescents ages 12 and up, as well as adults. And then in my private practice setting, I also worked with teenagers and their families. I conducted forensic work with teenagers and their families, as well as with adults and couples. And at this point in my career, I'm working almost exclusively with individuals who are over the age of 18 in both my forensic and clinical practices.

MS. POMERANTZ: In addition to running a group practice, do you work anywhere else?

MS. POMERANTZ: Where do you work?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm on the faculty, the clinical faculty at Brown University School of Medicine.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you work in a particular department within Brown University School of Medicine?

LISA ROCCHIO: Within the department of psychiatry.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is your title?

LISA ROCCHIO: Clinical assistant professor.

MS. POMERANTZ: How long have you taught at Brown University's medical school?

LISA ROCCHIO: Since June of 2020.

MS. POMERANTZ: And what are your current responsibilities in your job at Brown?

LISA ROCCHIO: I supervise psychiatrists in training, so psychiatric fellows who are learning how to do adult psychotherapy. I also conduct seminars around issues pertaining to trauma and traumatic stress.

MS. POMERANTZ: Have you published articles on traumatic stress and interpersonal violence?

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you have any other involvement in professional publications?

LISA ROCCHIO: I do. I'm on the editorial advisory board for the primary journal for the division of trauma psychology within the American Psychological Association. And I also serve as a peer reviewer for a number of other journals when topics come up that pertain to my areas of expertise.

MS. POMERANTZ: What does it mean to serve as a peer reviewer?

LISA ROCCHIO: So when someone wants to have an article published, they will submit the article to the journal. And then the editors will send that article out to experts in the field to review the article and provide feedback as to whether the article should be accepted, whether significant or minor revisions are in order, or whether the article should be rejected for publication.

MS. POMERANTZ: Have you given presentations in the area of traumatic stress and interpersonal violence?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, many.

MS. POMERANTZ: How did you come to give those presentations?

LISA ROCCHIO: So there are really two ways that I've given presentations. One is through professional conferences, where you go through a very similar peer review process for professional organizations that are in the field of psychology or national and international traumatic stress organizations. And then I've also given a number of invited addresses where I've been asked to come and provide a lecture or a talk on a topic within my area of expertise.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you belong to any professional organizations, Dr. Rocchio?

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you hold any leadership positions for those organizations?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, I do.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain briefly.

LISA ROCCHIO: Sure. I'm currently the president-elect for the division of trauma psychology within the American Psychological Association. I serve on the ethics committee for the American Psychological Association. Within my state psychological association, I've served in various capacities. I've been president; and I'm currently serving there as their representative, their council representative to the national organization of the American Psychological Association.

MS. POMERANTZ: Are you a fellow of any professional organizations?

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain briefly.

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm a fellow of the American Psychological Association within two divisions, the division of trauma psychology and the division of independent practice. And to be awarded fellow status means that I have been recognized as having made unique and significant, unusual contributions to the field of psychology.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, how do you keep up to date on the subjects in which you specialize?

LISA ROCCHIO: Through a variety of ways. Through regular peer consultation, talking with other colleagues who are experts in the field, reading the literature. Certainly I learn a tremendous amount from the clients with whom I work, attending continuing education programming, and getting consultation from peers on an as-needed basis.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you receive any additional education and training to keep up to date?

LISA ROCCHIO: So as part of my licensure requirements and then also because it's a way to keep up to date, I regularly attend continuing education seminars, yes.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, at this time the government moves to qualify Dr. Rocchio as an expert in psychology with a specialized expertise in traumatic stress and interpersonal violence.

MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Consistent with my pretrial ruling, I do deem Dr. Rocchio so qualified.

MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, have you interviewed any witnesses in this case?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, I have not.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you know who the witnesses in this case are?

LISA ROCCHIO: I do not.

MS. POMERANTZ: Has the government provided you with any specific details about this case?

MS. POMERANTZ: Are you aware of press and news reporting relating to the allegations of this case?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm aware of it, yes.

MS. POMERANTZ: Do you have any personal knowledge of the facts of this case?

LISA ROCCHIO: I do not.

MS. POMERANTZ: To be clear, when you are describing aspects of childhood sexual abuse today, will your testimony be based on information from this specific case?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, it will not.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, what, if any, compensation are you receiving for testifying today?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm being compensated for the time spent preparing to testify and the time spent testifying.

MS. POMERANTZ: What kind of basis is that done?

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm being paid hourly for my time.

MS. POMERANTZ: Does the amount that you get paid depend in any way on the outcome of the trial?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, it depends solely on the time spent.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, I want to switch gears a little. Based on your experience, research, and training, how are most instances of childhood sexual abuse committed?

LISA ROCCHIO: When children are sexually abused, most often it's not done through the use of physical force, but rather through grooming and coercion in the context of a relationship with the child.

MS. POMERANTZ: Are most instances of childhood sexual abuse committed by strangers or people known to the children?

LISA ROCCHIO: Usually by people known to the child.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, are you familiar with the term "grooming"?

MS. POMERANTZ: What is grooming?

LISA ROCCHIO: Grooming is -- refers to a series of deceptive tactics, strategies, modus operandi that are used by perpetrators for the purpose of engaging a child in sexual abuse.

MS. POMERANTZ: How long has the concept of grooming been recognized among the psychological community?

LISA ROCCHIO: So childhood sexual abuse is a process. And so the -- it doesn't refer to a single event. So understanding in reference to these processes that offenders use to -- in order to facilitate their sexual abuse has been part of the childhood sexual abuse literature since we've been talking about sexual abuse, so the early 1900s -- 1970s, I mean, sorry. Grooming itself, probably since about the 1980s.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio can I just ask you to move a little bit closer to the microphone; I just want to make sure everyone can hear you.

LISA ROCCHIO: Okay. Sorry.

MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. Is there one definition of grooming?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, there's not. There's generally consensus around what the process entails and the types -- and the stages that it generally involves, but not one specific agreed-upon definition.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you describe what grooming typically entails at a high level.

LISA ROCCHIO: So it's usually thought to include behaviors that fall into five general stages: The first having to do with selection and identification of a victim; then obtaining access and -- to the victim and isolating that victim for the purpose of sexual abuse; then engaging in lies and deception and manipulation in order to build a relationship of trust and attachment with the child; then a process of desensitizing the child to both physical touch, sexual content, and sexual touch; and then finally, a process of maintaining control in order to coerce the child into continued sexual abuse and to reduce the likelihood of disclosure.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, I'd like to walk through those stages of grooming in a little more detail. Can you please explain the first stage for the jury.

LISA ROCCHIO: So we know from the literature -- literature both with victims and with offenders -- that offenders typically seek to target someone who they believe they're likely to be able to successfully abuse. They target vulnerable children, vulnerable populations. We also know this because there are certain vulnerable populations that are at much higher risk for being sexually abused.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, can you explain the second stage of grooming for the jury.

LISA ROCCHIO: So the second stage involves perpetrators putting themselves in situations where they are likely to have access to children, but also where they're being around children is not likely to be questioned. We often find perpetrators of childhood sexual abuse in positions where there's lots of kids around. It may be as a coach or a teacher, working at a gym, certainly boy scout leader, they put themselves in situations where their involvement and relationship and access to children are not going to be questioned. And then they will begin to isolate that child, the one that they've selected for victimization, in order to have time alone with the child.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you please describe the next stage of grooming. I believe we're up to the third stage.

LISA ROCCHIO: Okay. So once the perpetrator has access to the child, the next thing that they typically do is engage in a series of deceptive and coercive manipulative behaviors in order to build a relationship of trust, attachment, and dependency. So they will exploit whatever vulnerabilities they've identified in the child, and then put themselves in a position to meet those unmet needs. And that can involve anything from spending time with the child; giving the child special attention; letting the child know that they're unique or special in some way; creating a false sense of family, you know, I'm somebody you can trust, I'm somebody you can rely on; gift giving, sometimes using money or exposing them to things that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. And that generally both increases the likelihood that the child is going to become attached and connected with the perpetrator, but also it increases the perpetrator's power and control over the victim.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, you mentioned gift-giving. Based on your experience, research, and training, what role can gift-giving play in building a relationship between a child and a perpetrator?

LISA ROCCHIO: Gift-giving can certainly be a very powerful inducement and lure in the context of a relationship. Again, especially to the extent that you're working with -- that a perpetrator is attempting to manipulate someone who perhaps has limited access to resources and you start giving them things that -- you know, that they need or that they like. I've, for example, seen examples where a boy scout leader might, you know, give camping equipment or someone else might buy a really special car, if they know that the child is really into cars, or fancy dresses or clothing or jewelry. Anything that might persuade the child, again, that they are special, that they are liked, that they are wanted, that they are important to the perpetrator.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, do victims of childhood sexual abuse hold on to gifts given to them by perpetrators?

LISA ROCCHIO: I think it can really depend. It can depend on what the gift is, what the meaning of the gift is to the individual. So certainly it wouldn't be unusual, particularly, again, if we're talking about somebody who wouldn't otherwise have access to that item, whatever it may be. They may hold on to it because it's a valuable item, it's something they like, it's something they enjoy. But also victims of childhood sexual abuse are often very, very confused. They're being harmed in the relationship by the sexual abuse, but they also have developed this trust and attachment. So sometimes the gifts can symbolize the positive parts of the relationship and serve to remind the child that it wasn't all bad.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, can you explain for the jury the next stage of grooming.

LISA ROCCHIO: So once this relationship of trust and attachment has been established, then the next stage involves a process of desensitization, which means slowly and gradually moving the line, and the perpetrator begins to define what is and is not normal. So with physical contact, for example, they may initially start by normalizing touch. Maybe, you know, touching on the arm, touching on the shoulder, giving hugs. That may escalate to, you know, sitting very close, touching a leg, giving a massage; normalizing the idea that in a relationship, you know, physical contact is happening. And at the same time, they're normalizing sexual material. So they may begin slowly by talking about sex, introducing the topic, telling sexual jokes. That may escalate to maybe showing risque movies, which might escalate to pornography. And then all of that will then escalate over time to combining the sexual activity to sexual touch in the form of sexual abuse.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain the fifth stage of grooming.

LISA ROCCHIO: So the fifth stage really is about maintaining the relationship. At this point now there's a dynamic of what's referred to in the literature as entrapment and a dynamic of coercive control whereby the perpetrator wants to maintain the relationship, maintain the power they have over the victim of childhood sexual abuse so that the abuse can continue, but also to the extent that the child remains isolated and under the control of the perpetrator, the victim is far less likely to disclose.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, how, if at all, common is it for a child to be sexually abused multiple times by the same perpetrator?

LISA ROCCHIO: Unfortunately, it's very common. Again, because it's occurring in a relationship, oftentimes the perpetrator has continued access and the abuse continues.

MS. POMERANTZ: How long does it typically take to move through the stages of grooming that you've described for the jury?

LISA ROCCHIO: It can really depend. I mean, we call them stages, but sometimes they occur simultaneously, sometimes they occur, you know, more gradually. So we can be talking about a process of weeks, we can be talking about something that's happening over the course of months or abuse that can continue over the course of many years.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, are you familiar with the term "grooming the environment"?

MS. POMERANTZ: What is grooming the environment?

LISA ROCCHIO: Grooming the environment refers to -- it's most relevant to the stages two and three in terms of gaining access and then building trust. It means that the perpetrator is known to often not only develop a relationship of trust with the intended victim, but also with individuals in the victim's lives. So they may, for example, hold themselves out to parents, say, as somebody who's going to be there as a support to the parent, to fill some need that maybe the parent would like to provide for the child, but for some reason is unable to. But, again, it's a series of lies and deceptive manipulations that the perpetrator engages in so that when they spend a lot of time alone with a child, it doesn't raise any sort of suspicion and it increases access. It also increases the child's trust in the perpetrator because now you have other adults perhaps that the child trusts who are kind of conveying that this is -- this is a trustworthy and an okay person to be spending time with.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, do the techniques used by perpetrators to build a relationship with a child vary depending on the age of the child?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes. Perpetrators are really quite skillful. And when they are interviewed, they'll tell you that they can really -- they work hard to pinpoint exactly what it is they need to do in order to win over the trust of a particular individual. So if you're talking about a younger child, maybe it will be camping gear, maybe it will be taking them out for ice cream. If you're talking about an adolescent, it might be fancy clothes, it might be drugs and alcohol. It can really vary.

MS. POMERANTZ: You talked about gift-giving. How can you tell if that gift-giving is grooming or innocent behavior?

LISA ROCCHIO: So gift-giving in and of itself is not grooming. What we're talking about is it's part of an entire process. So you have to look at the context in which the gift is giving -- is given, I'm sorry. Obviously we know anyone can give a gift to someone else for perfectly reasonable reasons. But if the gift is being given along with all of these other behaviors where, you know, there's inordinate access, there's deceptive techniques being used to build a relationship of trust, there's isolation of the child, and then desensitization to touch and sexual -- sexual abuse, then the gift-giving is occurring within the context of the grooming process for the purposes of sexual abuse.

MS. POMERANTZ: Is grooming a concept used to predict whether an adult is going to sexually abuse a child?

LISA ROCCHIO: No. In the social sciences in psychology, we're actually not very good at predicting behavior ahead of time. So, no, we haven't really been able yet to identify grooming as a predictor.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you tell retrospectively whether someone who was abused was also groomed?

LISA ROCCHIO: Sure. Yeah. On the individual level, for example, when I'm providing treatment and I'm talking with someone who's been abused, we'll be talking about how that abuse came to be. And often they'll be talking about the development of the relationship and how they felt about this person and how it unfolded over time. And then we've also done scientific research that's been done to also identify retrospectively the grooming process.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain what you mean by the scientific research.

LISA ROCCHIO: Sure. So there's a lot of research that's been done, for example, with victims, talking with them about what their experiences have been in terms of the childhood sexual abuse that they've experienced. And that's with both people who are talking about the abuse as children or people who are talking about it when they are adults. So there's what -- that would be called kind of the victim literature. But then there are also a number of professionals who do research and work with the offenders. And they do research talking with offenders about what sorts of behaviors they engage in in order to lure and recruit and entrap children in these sexually abusive circumstances. And then finally, you have interviews and research that's done with professionals in the field who work with both victims and perpetrators. So to the extent that you look at the research and you see that what victims tell us has been done to them, and you look at the research at what offenders say that they do, and professionals who say that they see, to the extent that all of those things are very, very similar, that gives us some scientific support for the idea that this is, in fact, a common occurrence.

MS. POMERANTZ: And just to be clear, what is the consistency across those various groups of literature that you were just describing?

LISA ROCCHIO: Very high level of consistency with what victims report has been done to them and what offenders say that they do.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, approximately how many patients have you treated and evaluated who have reported behaviors consistent with grooming?

LISA ROCCHIO: Hundreds upon hundreds.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, how useful, if at all, is the concept of grooming in treating and assessing patients who report having been subjected to childhood sexual abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: It's very important.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain why.

LISA ROCCHIO: So in the course of treatment for one who's been abused as a child, often the fact that the abuse occurred in the context of a relationship with someone they had come to trust and depend upon is a significant part of what they're struggling with in therapy. They are trying to understand how they could have been fooled. They are trying to look back at the relationship and figure out what parts were real, what parts weren't. Often the fact that there were --

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, may we approach?

JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, you may.

(Continued on next page)

(At sidebar)

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as being outside what's been endorsed for this witness's opinions in terms of the disclosure that was given to us. This is now a narrative into basically treatment of people as opposed to identifying what is or is not grooming. And that's never been disclosed and we didn't do any Daubert on this. I think it's outside of the opinion.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is part of her basis of her grooming opinion and delayed disclosure. This is something that was extensively covered at the Daubert hearing and in the briefing.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Her clinical treatment of people and identifying what is or is not grooming was discussed. But now she's getting into anecdotal discussions of treatment of her own patients, I believe, which is inappropriate, A, and B, not disclosed. And I don't think that this can be the subject of expert opinion. This is simple anecdotal testimony about her experience as a clinician.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, she's explaining to the jury the basis of her opinions. This is something that we've litigated already.

JUDGE NATHAN: It's a little different than what was presented in the Daubert. Just in this moment, that is to say, it's appropriate to describe generally the nature of her clinical experience. But she turned in this last question a little bit toward specific anecdotal discussion of her treatment, and that's beyond the scope and it's different. So I'll sustain with respect to this line and move to the next.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

(In open court)

JUDGE NATHAN: You may proceed. No, I'm sorry. I sustain the objection. Next question.

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the sexual gratification?

LISA ROCCHIO: No. We know that --

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I object to this.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on -- without getting into your own particular examples within your own clinical --

sidebarsidebarExpert-Testimony Scope Sidebar

JUDGE NATHAN: Counsel, it's a different objection. It's based on my ruling.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may we be heard at sidebar?

(Continued on next page)

(At sidebar)

JUDGE NATHAN: This is grooming by third-party involvement. They called it grooming by proxy. It is a specific area that I precluded in my opinion. That was the only -- in the Daubert, the only questions that were asked about whether there might be someone else who receives the sexual gratification was in the context of that precise issue. We talked about it in the context of testimony in the pimp-prostitute context, and it was litigated entirely on that question, and that's where I precluded it.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just wanted to note we weren't asking about the presence of a third party facilitating a sexual abuse, which is what I understood your Honor's opinion to be --

JUDGE NATHAN: Well, you're toying with that boundary in a way that was not discussed in the Daubert hearing. You didn't ask that question that you just asked, and we only discussed it. So, for example, it sounds like she's giving an opinion similar to the pimp-prostitute context, that we talked about those cases precisely on this issue. So you're toying with the boundary of what I've precluded in a way that was not brought out during Daubert.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just note that I had actually ran this question by defense counsel to avoid this issue yesterday. I'll move on. That's fine.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Let me make a record. I raised this issue two days ago, and exactly this issue, and was assured that the government was not going to go to this issue. And that question exactly was the question that I raised about not going into that question. And because -- well, I don't need to get into reasons, but because of disclosures, I raised this issue, your Honor. So I object to any further discussion about this, which is prejudicial, it's outside of the scope of the -- well, it's clearly, in my view, a violation of the Court's ruling.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just want to be clear for the record. We had viewed this question as not coming close to the line. We understand the Court's opinion with respect to the presence of a third party. I was not intending to ask that. This is a distinct question.

JUDGE NATHAN: Did you ask this question at the Daubert?

MS. POMERANTZ: I think we can check the transcript, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Outside of the context of -- in any event, I'm sustaining for the reasons I've indicated. I have no idea what happened in a discussion that you raised this and understood them to say they wouldn't do it. It's baffling to me.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, just to be clear, I ran the exact question by Mr. Pagliuca.

JUDGE NATHAN: He's saying he ran the exact question by you, you said you wouldn't do it. Look, that's why we have a court reporter now.

(Continued on next page)

(In open court)

JUDGE NATHAN: I sustain the objection. I will direct the jury to disregard the last response from the witness. That testimony is struck. Go ahead.

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, what factors, if any, place a child at increased risk of being sexually abused?

LISA ROCCHIO: The research in particular has looked at what types of vulnerability factors place children at higher risk. And they generally fall into factors pertaining to either the child's characteristics, personal characteristics, issues pertaining to the parents and the parental characteristics, and issues pertaining to the family.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain the personal factors.

LISA ROCCHIO: So we know that children who have experienced victimization of any kind, whether it's prior child sexual abuse or physical and emotional abuse or neglect are at much higher risk, for example, of being revictimized later. We know that children who have certain kinds of psychological or chronic health difficulties can be certainly at much higher risk for child sexual abuse. We know that children who come from disadvantaged circumstances can be at higher risk, children with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, for example; children who come from -- who are members of minority gender or sexual groups are also at higher risk.

MS. POMERANTZ: You also mentioned parental factors. Can you explain that for the jury please.

LISA ROCCHIO: To the extent that there's conflict and particularly, to the extent that there's violence between the parents in the home, certainly to the extent that there are financial difficulties within the home, so children, families, parents who have less -- fewer resources, are at higher risk. To the extent that the parents themselves have experienced any form of abuse in their own backgrounds, that also places the child at higher risk. To the extent that the parents are abusive to the child, that puts the child at risk for being abused by others. And there's also research to show that the presence of a stepfather in the home or oftentimes a single parent can, under certain circumstances, put a child at higher risk.

MS. POMERANTZ: You also mentioned family factors. Can you explain those please.

LISA ROCCHIO: Those factors refer to the family functioning in general. So children who have poor attachment, poor connection with other family members are at higher risk. Families where there are other children in the home who are being abused or have been abused are at higher risk. Families who are isolated, for example, those families that have moved six or more times in the course of a child's lifetime, that single factor can place a child at higher risk. So these are vulnerabilities that have been found to be specific to child sexual abuse risk.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, Dr. Rocchio, are you familiar with the term "attachment"?

MS. POMERANTZ: What is attachment?

LISA ROCCHIO: Attachment really refers to the relationship and connection between two people. The research was initially done looking at the caregiver attachment, so typically the relationship that it develops between a mother and an infant. But it's since expanded to look at relationships between other caregivers and children, as well as adults.

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you please explain the relationship, if any, between attachment and grooming.

LISA ROCCHIO: So in the context of building a relationship of trust and using coercion and deception and lies in order to manipulate the child, one of the things that offenders are doing is trying to create increased dependency, trust, and attachment. They hold themselves out as somebody who is special to the child, and the child feels often very special, and that there's something unique and important and valuable about their relationship with the perpetrator.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, are you familiar with the term "coercive control"?

MS. POMERANTZ: What is coercive control?

LISA ROCCHIO: Coercive control refers to a strategic pattern of domination for purposes of controlling another individual and getting that individual to either do or not do things that you want them to do or not do.

MS. POMERANTZ: What is the relationship between grooming and coercive control?

LISA ROCCHIO: So the whole pattern of the grooming process is designed to create an environment of coercive control, whereby the negative aspects of the relationship, the abuse itself or intimidation or threats, are interspersed with these positive or neutral events which causes the attachment to keep going. It kind of keeps the hope alive that there are positive aspects to the relationship. It causes confusion and difficulty identifying the abuse as wrong on the part of the victim. And it keeps the victim in a state of what's referred to as entrapment and under the power and control of the perpetrator.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, how do the grooming process and the concept of attachment impact the way in which a victim of childhood sexual abuse understands the abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: So what we know, from both my training, research, and the scientific literature, as well as my experience, is that the grooming and attachment and the degree to which the child is close to the perpetrator is very closely tied to adverse outcomes and really can interfere with their ability to identify that what's happening -- even realizing that what's happening to them is abusive or is wrong.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, does the relationship of trust and attachment between a victim and a perpetrator affect whether a victim tells someone about the abuse?

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain how?

LISA ROCCHIO: One of the things that we know when we look at when do victims of childhood sexual abuse tell and who do they tell is we know that they are less likely to tell and more likely to have a delay in telling the closer the relationship to the perpetrator.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, are you familiar with a concept called "delayed disclosure"?

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain for the jury what delayed disclosure is.

LISA ROCCHIO: Delayed disclosure really just refers to when does someone tell. So in the case of delayed disclosure in terms of child sexual abuse, we would call disclosure telling delayed when it happens at some point after the abuse has occurred.

MS. POMERANTZ: Does disclosure of childhood sexual abuse depend on the victim's age?

LISA ROCCHIO: We know that younger -- the younger someone is, the more likely they are to delay disclosure; in other words, the less likely they are to tell someone right away about what's happening to them.

MS. POMERANTZ: And when you say "the younger," how does that compare in terms of children?

LISA ROCCHIO: So when we're talking about children, they are much less likely to disclose. And most children, in fact, we know don't tell anyone about the abuse that they've experienced until adulthood.

MS. POMERANTZ: Is it common for children to disclose sexual abuse at or near the time of the abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: Not at all, no.

MS. POMERANTZ: Why is it not common?

LISA ROCCHIO: There are a number of factors. Delayed disclosure is such a common -- commonly recognized phenomenon within the literature that now we are doing research to try to identify what are the barriers to disclosure because, of course, we would like children to be able to tell their experiences sooner so that they can get access to help and so that the abuse can be stopped. So there have been identified both internal barriers and external barriers to disclosure.

MS. POMERANTZ: When you say "external barriers," what are you referring to?

LISA ROCCHIO: So the external barriers are things that are outside the child. So, for example, fear of getting into trouble for an adolescent; in particular, fear that if they tell someone, their freedom is going to be constricted; fear that others are going to judge or blame them; fear often that the perpetrator is going to get into trouble. Again, remembering that they have a close relationship with this person often, and even though the person has been sexually abusing them, there's this sense of loyalty. So those would be examples of the external factors in contrast to the internal factors.

MS. POMERANTZ: What are the internal factors, Dr. Rocchio?

LISA ROCCHIO: So the internal factors have much more to do with the feelings of shame, feelings of guilt, the feelings of self-blame, the feelings of confusion, perhaps not acknowledging to oneself that what's happening is abusive. So those are the kind of emotions that go along with the impact of being sexually abused during childhood.

MS. POMERANTZ: Is the concept of delayed disclosure established in scientific literature?

MS. POMERANTZ: Can you explain.

LISA ROCCHIO: So sexual abuse, in particular, of all kinds is thought to be one of the most underreported crimes. But we certainly know that when we talk -- there are a lot of studies that are done, national studies, interviewing, say, adults, asking about a whole range of experiences that they've had during the course of their lifetime. And that research has repeatedly demonstrated that when people -- when you ask people if they acknowledge that they've been abused, particularly sexually abused, during childhood, and then you ask them if they ever told anyone, a significant number will say no, not until this interview. And then others will say yes, and then they are asked when they've told. And we know from the research that often they don't tell until adulthood.

MS. POMERANTZ: In your clinical and forensic practices, have you treated and evaluated patients who did not disclose sexual abuse they experienced as children, but disclosed such abuse later?

MS. POMERANTZ: Without getting into any particular anecdotes of your practices, can you explain.

LISA ROCCHIO: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question.

MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Can you just explain -- let me ask it this way: In your own clinical practice, how common, if at all, is it for you to be the first person your patients have told they were abused?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as not being relevant.

JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled. Thank you.

LISA ROCCHIO: It's very common in both my clinical and forensic work for individuals to tell me that either they had a significant delay in disclosure, and at times in my clinical work sometimes I am the very first person they've ever spoken about the abuse with.

MS. POMERANTZ: To be clear, how common is delayed disclosure in the patients you treat and evaluate in connection with your clinical and forensic practices?

LISA ROCCHIO: Very common.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, if an individual was sexually abused as a child, who, if anyone, is that individual most likely to disclose the sexual abuse to?

LISA ROCCHIO: If and when they choose to disclose, most often they're going to tell a trusted friend. If we're talking about adolescents, they're going to talk to a peer. If we are talking about adults, a trusted friend. Sometimes, as I alluded to when I said that I'm the first person they tell, sometimes it may be in the context of a therapy setting.

MS. POMERANTZ: Based on your experience, research, and training, is an individual who was sexually abused as a child likely to report the abuse to law enforcement?

LISA ROCCHIO: No. Unfortunately, we know that rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse, again, they are the most underreported crimes. And law enforcement agencies are actually the least likely group to which an initial report or disclosure is made.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, how do people who have experienced childhood sexual abuse talk about or disclose the abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: It's important when --

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this foundation for this question.

JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Foundation and what else?

MR. PAGLIUCA: The question is very vague, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So a form objection?

JUDGE NATHAN: I'll sustain. Can you rephrase, Ms. Pomerantz. Is the question in the context of clinical therapy?

MS. POMERANTZ: I asked based on the experience, research, and training. I'm happy to be more specific, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead. Thank you.

MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you.

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, in your clinical practice, how do people who have experienced childhood sexual abuse talk about or disclose the abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: Disclosure is a process that unfolds over time. So individuals will typically begin the disclosure maybe by alluding to what's happened in a general sense or the gist of what's happened. And then it's only over time that they will begin to talk more specifically about what has happened. And even in therapy, oftentimes disclosure of the most intimate or difficult details is something that's very hard and individuals are very reluctant to do.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, in your clinical experience, what factors -- withdrawn, your Honor. Dr. Rocchio, in your clinical and forensic experience, what factors contribute to if and when a person discloses the childhood sexual abuse they experienced?

LISA ROCCHIO: It has to do with the degree to which they feel safe, the degree to which they feel that they are going to be believed. Again, as it's a process that unfolds over time, they may begin to talk about it. And then to the extent that they are getting messages that they are being judged or that they are being blamed or shamed, they may shut down. To the extent that they feel supported and believed, then they may be more likely to continue with that disclosure, again, over time.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, what, if any, long-term impact does childhood sexual abuse have on victims?

LISA ROCCHIO: We know that although all adverse events that occur during childhood can place children at higher risk for adverse outcomes, we know that among those, child sexual abuse in particular increases risk for a very, very high number of various health problems and mental health problems and also increases risk for the severity of those problems.

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, what is the relationship between grooming and attachment and the impact of childhood sexual abuse?

LISA ROCCHIO: So the closer the relationship between the child and the perpetrator, and the longer the abuse has gone on, the more likely --

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as being asked and answered. I think we're recovering ground here.

JUDGE NATHAN: I understand that. It's asked and answered. Thank you. Sustained.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have a moment please?

(Counsel conferred)

BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, when you treat victims of childhood sexual abuse for trauma, how does the concept of trust factor into the treatment?

MR. PAGLIUCA: I object to this being outside of the scope, your Honor and, I think, asked and answered as well.

JUDGE NATHAN: Those are kind of conflicting objections, but overruled. I'll allow it. You may answer.

LISA ROCCHIO: Trust is central often in the treatment of someone who's been sexually abused, because it's often the part that is most confusing and also causes the most -- the most harm. We know that the more they trusted the individual, then, of course, the more they feel betrayed, the more betrayal there's been. And to the extent that there's betrayal in the relationship, then the individuals are really struggling to a much, much greater degree, often trying to understand what happened, how it happened and why, and what its effect is certainly.

MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing further, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Thank you. We'll take our mid-morning break, members of the jury, about a 15-minute break. Thank you so much.

(Jury not present)

JUDGE NATHAN: You may be seated. Matters to take up?

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just wanted to note, the government understood that the Court's opinion excluded Dr. Rocchio's opinion regarding the presence of a third party. We did check the transcript, your Honor. And on page 73, I had asked a question about whether there was anything about what you're testifying about here that says that grooming can only be done for the benefit of the person doing the grooming, to which Dr. Rocchio responded, No, there's not. And then your Honor had asked a series of questions relating to the presence of a third party, what the defense has been referring to as grooming by proxy, which is a different subject matter. And then I believe I had returned to questions about that topic. So I just wanted to note that for your Honor that we -- when I asked that question, I believe that it was different from the question -- the opinion that your Honor had excluded. Your Honor, there is a distinction between the presence of a third party and whose sexual gratification the grooming is for; that that is part and parcel of the larger topic of grooming and attachment. I'm not trying to relitigate it, your Honor --

JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, you're not?

MS. POMERANTZ: Well, if your Honor would permit me --

JUDGE NATHAN: Looking at the transcript, I think it's consistent with my ruling. I understand you're saying you didn't intentionally -- the point you're making is you didn't intentionally violate my ruling.

MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. And I see the portion of the transcript. I continue to think the testimony regarding whether strategies that she's testifying about can be utilized for the sexual gratification of the person doing the grooming we explored in the Daubert context specifically with me asking whether she talked about -- whether there was literature comparable to the pimp-prostitute context in which grooming happens for the gratification of a third person. And I said, Is there anything like that in the child sexual abuse context beyond the, sort of, institutional authority positions that you've discussed? And she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion of that small window of her testimony.

So I still think that even if there are slightly distinct points to be made as to whether grooming always happens for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing the grooming, and whether grooming by a third person facilitates child sexual abuse for another person, for me, the context in the Daubert overlapped and related to the same issue, which is the narrow issue that I excluded on. So I take your point that there's a slight analytical distinction and, therefore, I don't believe you intentionally violated my ruling. I do think sustaining the objection is consistent with that ruling. I don't understand how it could be that in conferring, both counsel completely misunderstood each other. Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the question that you asked, and understood you to say that you wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an objection. Wow. I can't explain that. It seems to me that you had this discussion on this issue precisely because it comes up to the question of the boundaries of the opinion and there we are. Anything further?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Not from me, your Honor.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, nothing further. I just wanted to note that in the transcript for your Honor. Our understanding is that the question that had been posed to Dr. Rocchio was about the presence of third parties, and just wanted to make that clear for your Honor when she had said no, that was our understanding as to what she was saying no about, in terms of the support in the literature, your Honor. But I take your Honor's point. We can move on, your Honor. I just wanted to explain that to the Court, where the question was coming from, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: The question you asked that was objected to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training, is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the sexual gratification? For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call grooming by proxy. Again, I see there's a slight analytical distinction between the question you asked and that theory, but the question, I think -- and I see that she says no, that wasn't how she understood it. But still for me, that testimony was in aid of the next piece, which I excluded. So again, I don't -- I don't think you intentionally violated the line of the order.

MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: I still don't understand the miscommunication. Anything else to take up? I don't understand the miscommunication between counsel, that is.

MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Anything else?

MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government.

MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We will resume in ten. Thank you.

(Recess)

JUDGE NATHAN: Matters to take up?

MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. Apologies. Thank you, your Honor. We had an opportunity to confer with the defense just now in terms of topics for cross-examination. And we understand that Mr. Pagliuca intends to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio about certain topics that were not the subject of her direct testimony and of topics about which he has not proffered an expert opinion, such as things like the halo effect or suggestive memory and the like. And so I wanted to flag that for the Court because we think that such questions would be inappropriate on cross-examination.

JUDGE NATHAN: So beyond the scope.

MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Would you like me to respond, your Honor?

MR. PAGLIUCA: So I guess first with regard to the memory issue, Dr. Rocchio talked about delayed disclosure and memory impacts delayed disclosure. And it's not as simple to say that there are only a couple of reasons why disclosure is delayed. I mean they can say, Well, there are these factors that result --

JUDGE NATHAN: So is the cross -- Dr. Rocchio, you talked about delayed disclosure. Are there other reasons?

JUDGE NATHAN: And then what?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, like memory and things like confabulation and the process of storing memories and retrieving memories, the effect of alcohol on memories. Those are the kinds of things that would impact memory and, therefore, delayed disclosure, which I think are fair game on cross-examination; psychological conditions that may impact delayed disclosure is fair game on cross-examination. So those are some of the topics.

JUDGE NATHAN: So the basic point is to the extent she talked about the literature regarding delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse, you want to ask if there are other reasons for delayed disclosure.

JUDGE NATHAN: And explore her expertise on those other reasons?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, she's being proffered as an expert in psychology, to begin with, and trauma. And the interplay between trauma, psychology, and delayed disclosure is simply not you're close to somebody and, therefore, you don't disclose or you feel embarrassed about something and you don't disclose. There are other things, and they relate to other facts in this case. And I think that we're entitled to bring those things out on this expert who is testifying as a blind expert. It's just fair game for cross-examination.

JUDGE NATHAN: I think there's two questions. There's scope of direct and, I agree, to the extent that she's testified for a reason about delayed disclosure, you can cross her as to whether she's aware of other reasons for delayed disclosure. I think the question is whether there is a version of that which is then seeking to solicit, sort of, not just I'm aware of other reasons. Are you aware of this kind of literature? Are you aware of that kind -- but to actually have her explain, as an expert, opinions, undisclosed opinions, regarding some of those issues. And I can't tell yet from your proffer whether you're trying to do the former or the latter or --

MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm not going to ask her for any opinions, your Honor. I'm going to be using leading questions throughout all of this. So there will be no --

MR. PAGLIUCA: -- opportunity for her to give an opinion other than yes or no.

JUDGE NATHAN: Well, we'll see about that.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. Of course. 611 allows you to control the examination 100 percent, your Honor, and I get that. But I don't intend to, I guess that's the answer to the Court's question.

JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Pomerantz?

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor --

JUDGE NATHAN: So in terms of -- let's just start with scope, if we could. So to the extent she's testified around her opinions regarding delayed disclosure in this context, is it fair cross-examination and within the scope of that to suggest that there are other reasons for delayed disclosure?

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have one moment?

(Counsel conferred)

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think the issue or the concern from the government is that --

JUDGE NATHAN: Can we start with the answer to my question, and then tell me what the issue is.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, unfortunately, I think the question -- the answer is a little complicated because --

JUDGE NATHAN: I can handle it.

MS. POMERANTZ: In the sense that I don't -- your Honor, I have no doubt in that. I meant that it's not a yes or no answer; because I'm a little unclear on what Mr. Pagliuca is intending to do.

JUDGE NATHAN: We're going to see and there might be a line, but that's why I want to just start with the first question, right. So the first question is you made a scope objection. The witness testified about delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse. Is it fair cross to ask if there are other reasons for delayed disclosure?

MS. POMERANTZ: I believe so, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So then tell me where you think the line turns from that fair cross into soliciting opinions.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think the concern is where Mr. Pagliuca intends to ask questions about, you know, You're aware there's theory about X, certain topics. But she is not an expert on those topics and has not been proffered -- has not been offered as an expert on those topics. That is crossing the line. And it seems that this more proper; this would be an area where they are trying to explain, I think, why it's relevant to offer their own expert, as opposed to why they should be able to cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions.

JUDGE NATHAN: I'm having trouble in the abstract understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you?

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think we would. But I think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert.

JUDGE NATHAN: I've qualified her as an expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse. We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and, you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in expert testimony through your cross-examination.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not intend to do that, your Honor. I would say that absent a few other questions, much of my cross-examination -- and not, frankly, on the topic of the literature that was discussed during the Daubert hearing, but much of my cross-examination is similar to that which was -- that occurred that your Honor pointed out during the hearing was -- may be appropriate in front of a jury. That was a comment that the Court made.

JUDGE NATHAN: I did say that.

MR. PAGLIUCA: That was not helpful to you during the Daubert hearing, but it might be helpful in front of a jury. So that is some of the cross-examination.

JUDGE NATHAN: I think I particularly said that when you were spending a fair amount of time on hourly fees.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Has very little effect on me.

MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand.

JUDGE NATHAN: I understand the concern, at least with respect to suggestive memory. We've established there's some fair grounds to cross to make sure she's considered other bases. That's kind of classic cross of an expert. I won't allow insertion of undisclosed expert testimony via cross-examination questions, and you won't do that. And you'll object, Ms. Pomerantz, if so. Halo effect.

MR. PAGLIUCA: So I'm not going to call -- well, I don't think I'm going to call it that, your Honor. But on direct examination, the government elicited testimony specifically about -- and let me get to my notes here so I can be accurate -- grooming the environment was the --

JUDGE NATHAN: Grooming the environment.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, "grooming the environment" was the catchphrase, which Dr. Rocchio said was a commonly recognized phenomena used by perpetrators in the service of getting the accusers to victims and building that relationship with trust. This is based on one of the articles that Dr. Rocchio provided to the government and was referenced during the Daubert hearing and relied on by Dr. Rocchio as part of her testimony here today in terms of the five -- you may recall the five stages of grooming that we went through with Dr. Rocchio about an hour ago. That article is called Stages of Sexual Grooming, Recognizing Potentially Predatory Behaviors of Child Molesters, and is disclosed at 3500 material, 3502-018, disclosed to me by the government through Dr. Rocchio. And in that article, there is a discussion at page 9, and they call it the hindsight bias phenomena. And so I am intending to ask her --

JUDGE NATHAN: So you have a theory that everything in any article disclosed is within the scope of the direct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So let's go back to that question. So you started by saying grooming the environment.

JUDGE NATHAN: What does this have to do with it?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, because what that -- what the testimony from Dr. Rocchio was and is, is that the perpetrator is deceiving people around the perpetrator. She talked about the boy scout business and all of that. And that is part of this hindsight -- bias hindsight effect which is referred to in the literature. And I think it's appropriate to bring that out as part of this testimony.

(Continued on next page)

JUDGE NATHAN: What's the question?

MR. PAGLIUCA: The question will be: Isn't it true that hindsight bias phenomena could lead to blame of the victim's family or community from not preventing the abuse, which is a direct quote out of article that she is basing her testimony on.

JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry. I don't have LiveNote. Can you give that to me again?

MR. PAGLIUCA: The quote?

JUDGE NATHAN: No, your question.

MR. PAGLIUCA: The question is: Isn't it true that the hindsight bias phenomena can lead to blame to the victim's family or community for not preventing the abuse?

JUDGE NATHAN: That sounds beyond the scope to me.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Beyond the scope of an article --

JUDGE NATHAN: I just started with the proposition is it your theory that everything in an article disclosed suddenly is within the scope of the direct, and you said no, rightly. So that's why I asked for the question. The question you asked is beyond the scope of the direct, unless you want to point me to testimony suggesting otherwise, other than the fact that it's in an article disclosed. If I would make everybody answer my first question, it's the first question that gets me where I need to go.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Menninger points out that she also said --

JUDGE NATHAN: Is that in the testimony?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Two things. This is in my notes as well. Grooming not always easily detected, and these factors are not used to predict grooming. That's what she testified to. And the next-question is along the lines of, you know, you are deceiving those around you, and people don't necessarily know that they are being groomed along with the other individuals being groomed. So I do not have to call it hindsight bias.

JUDGE NATHAN: I don't see yet how that links up to the question that you gave me.

MR. PAGLIUCA: It's a different --

JUDGE NATHAN: It sounds beyond the scope to me.

MR. PAGLIUCA: It's a different question.

JUDGE NATHAN: What's the question?

MR. PAGLIUCA: The question is the people who are grooming the environment are grooming the people around them and it is often difficult for the people that are -- that are in the environment being groomed to recognize that this grooming behavior is occurring.

JUDGE NATHAN: I would permit that question.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Ms. Pomerantz.

MS. POMERANTZ: That question seems fine, your Honor. I think the government agrees with your Honor that the other questions were beyond the scope.

MR. PAGLIUCA: May I? As long as we're on this topic, your Honor, I would like to preview another area from this article that I think is within this, but I want to make sure that the Court agrees with me before I go down this road.

JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.

MR. PAGLIUCA: The article that we're talking about which is at 3502-018, the government's disclosure, the study that was done in this particular article, and which I believe this is the basis for her testimony about this grooming the environment, and so the study that she is referring to factually, there were 395 undergraduate students at John Jay College here who were given the five vignettes, I will call them, of this grooming behavior and asked in a sixth vignette which was non-grooming behavior, and they were asked to predict prospectively whether or not that was grooming behavior, and they couldn't. And the conclusion of the study was the five factors that she was talking about cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior. And I would like to bring out those facts on cross-examination.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sure. I mean, that's consistent with her testimony.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.

MS. POMERANTZ: I believe so, your Honor, yes.

JUDGE NATHAN: Not a problem.

MS. POMERANTZ: I think that's right.

JUDGE NATHAN: But thank you for raising it.

MR. PAGLIUCA: That's it. I think we're good.

JUDGE NATHAN: Get the jury. Binder for the witness?

MR. PAGLIUCA: That is the binder for the witness.

JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Pomerantz, you are familiar with the binder?

MR. PAGLIUCA: It's simply her testimony from the Daubert hearing, which is the 3500 material and the article we discussed.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I please look at it first, if possible?

MR. PAGLIUCA: I promise, I didn't sneak in anything else.

(Jury present)

JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuco, you may begin your cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. Dr. Rocchio, I remind you, you are under oath.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROHRBACH:

MR. PAGLIUCA: Good morning, Dr. Rocchio.

LISA ROCCHIO: Good morning.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Dr. Rocchio, you talked a bit about your review of literature in connection with the topics that you talked about today. Do you recall that testimony this morning?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You yourself have not published anything specifically about the topic of grooming, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And you yourself have not conducted any metadata studies to collect and analyze literature about grooming, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And a metadata study is a somewhat comprehensive review of the literature on the topic, analyzing that literature, and then having a publication that deals with the metadata analysis. Is that a fair summary of what that would be?

LISA ROCCHIO: A statistical analysis, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: So the studies that you were discussing with the jury are studies that are done by other people, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, experts in the field.

MR. PAGLIUCA: You are aware that there is some disagreement in the scientific literature about the topic of grooming, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: About certain aspects of the topic, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yeah. And there are other respected professionals who disagree with some of your opinions about this topic, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: I -- I couldn't answer that. I'm not sure.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, for example, Dr. Dietz, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Which aspect of my opinion are you suggesting? Could you be more specific?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, you are aware from your review of the literature, for example, that Dr. O'Donohue has a disagreement with your opinion on the topic of grooming, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: I think that there are -- we're actually largely consistent in terms of the literature, both publications by Bennett and O'Donohue and by Dietz.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Some of the things that -- well, your testifying here is what's commonly referred to as a blind expert, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And that basically means that you don't have any factual information about the case, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: It typically means I haven't evaluated any of the parties in the case, and I'm testifying about specific subject matter expertise.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. So, for example, you don't know any of the individuals who are making allegations in this case, right?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, I do not.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And you haven't talked to any of the prosecution witnesses in this case, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And you have not reviewed any of the witness statements in connection with this case, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You haven't performed any psychological evaluation on anyone in connection with this case, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You are testifying having met with the government some approximately 15 times in connection with this case or talked --

LISA ROCCHIO: I don't believe it's that many, but a number of times, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And the only information that you have really has come from the government lawyers about this case, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: They haven't provided me with any details about the case at all.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And you have a contract with the government for $45,000 in connection with this case, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Up to $45,000, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, you're not offering any opinions about what did or did not happen in this case, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And you're not offering any opinions about any witness credibility in connection with this case, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You're not a neuropsychologist, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And neuropsychology is the study of the human behavior as it relates to normal and abnormal functions of the central nervous system, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And that involves the brain, which is a significant part of the central nervous system, right?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You're not a toxicologist, which involves a specialized study of the effects of alcohol and drugs on the human body, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: You did talk a little bit about disclosure and memory. Do you recall that testimony?

LISA ROCCHIO: I believe I spoke about disclosure.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And delays in disclosure, right?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And memory is a factor that contributes to a potential of delay in disclosure, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And there are two components to whether people can accurately remember things as part of disclosure. One would be the physical ability for someone to store or retrieve a memory?

LISA ROCCHIO: Is that a question?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Is that correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Could you clarify? I'm not really sure what you're asking.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. For example if somebody has a traumatic brain injury, it may be difficult for someone as a matter of physiology to retrieve a memory?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: There are other factors that relate to the ability of someone to accurately disclose a piece of information about any alleged abuse, correct?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Would you agree with me, Dr. Rocchio, that, for example, alcohol consumption can impact the disclosure of an event?

LISA ROCCHIO: I guess it would depend on the context. That question is so broad, I'm not really sure how to answer it.

MR. PAGLIUCA: If someone is consuming alcohol or controlled substances, they may not have a very good recall of a particular event, correct?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you familiar with the concept of confabulation, Dr. Rocchio?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.

JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Confabulation is the brain under certain circumstances filling in gaps to make a whole picture of something, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And a filling in of these gaps may or may not be accurate, but the person actually may believe what's been filled in?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: When you're talking about delayed disclosure, Dr. Rocchio, you didn't talk about two concepts that can impact delayed closure and memory: One of those would be secondary gain. Are you familiar with that concept?

MR. PAGLIUCA: That's a diagnostical and statistical manual definition --

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you familiar with the concept of malingering, Dr. Rocchio?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Malingering is the fabrication of symptoms for financial gain, correct?

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.

JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.

MR. PAGLIUCA: You talked about delays in disclosure about people being close. Do you recall that?

LISA ROCCHIO: Disclose in disclosure when there is a close attachment between the perpetrator and the victim of child sexual abuse, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And when you say perpetrator, we're talking about an allegation. So you're making an assumption that someone is a perpetrator --

MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.

JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.

MR. PAGLIUCA: -- in that context, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: No, I'm talking about the literature that's been done on child sexual abuse, so a significant amount of that literature is conducted by --

MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine, Dr. Rocchio.

JUDGE NATHAN: You may finish. You may finish. Go ahead.

LISA ROCCHIO: A significant amount of that literature has been conducted on known and corroborated or admitted --

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this as being --

JUDGE NATHAN: You asked the question and then you interrupted halfway through.

MR. PAGLIUCA: This is beyond the scope of my question.

JUDGE NATHAN: No, it's not. That's why I allowed the question. Overruled. You may finish. A. No, it's not an assumption, because a lot of the research that I'm talking about and much of my experience in both clinical and forensic settings has been conducted when the abuse is actually known or have been found in a court of law to have occurred or the event offender has admitted to the behavior.

MR. PAGLIUCA: You offered some opinions about grooming, Dr. Rocchio. I think you referred to grooming as a series of tactics and strategies that are commonly experienced by victims and utilized by offenders in the course of deceiving the child building a relationship of trust and then eventually sexually abusing the child. Is that correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yeah, that's a summary of what I said. Sure, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And these behaviors that you're referring to as grooming behaviors can also be non-grooming behaviors as well, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Some of them can, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And so there are many things that we do that in hindsight one might say is grooming, but prospectively you can't tell whether or not it's grooming, right?

LISA ROCCHIO: It would be important though to -- grooming is not a specific behavior. It's a series and a pattern of behavior that's taking into account the entire pattern. So it wouldn't be just a specific individual behavior.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, let's talk about specific individual behaviors, for example. My grandfather used to take me to the Bronx Zoo, and I liked going there. Is that a grooming behavior or not a grooming behavior?

LISA ROCCHIO: Given that in your hypothetical I'm assuming he wasn't taking you there for the purposes of sexual abuse, it would not be.

MR. PAGLIUCA: So the importance there is whether or not someone is doing something for an improper purpose. Is that correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: So, the intent around sexual exploitation and abuse is built into the definition of grooming when it's being used in the discussions of child sexual abuse, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. So there are many things that parents do, for example, that are normal behaviors that would not be considered grooming behaviors, true?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Such as buying presents for their children, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Taking their children to special places, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Treating the child specially, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Paying attention to the child, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Again, in the context of a healthy normal relationship, no, that would not be considered grooming.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Being nice to someone is not considered grooming, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: In the context of a healthy normal relationship, no.

MR. PAGLIUCA: You also talked about grooming the environment. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And that is an alleged perpetrator manipulating the environment around the perpetrator and children to achieve an improper purpose, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: An alleged or found perpetrator manipulating often the individuals in the child's environment.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, and that could include manipulating people around the perpetrator as well, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. So if the perpetrator is in a business, for example. Let's say the perpetrator is a boy scout leader, to use your example, right?

MR. PAGLIUCA: The perpetrator could deceive co-employees or their bosses so that the behavior that the perpetrator is engaging in looks normal to the people around the perpetrator, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes. Perpetrators are quite good at hiding their manipulative behaviors.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And deceiving those people around them, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: They can, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And those folks can become sort of pillars in the community with an air of respectability around them and use that to deceive people around them, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: Perpetrators, you mean?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, they can.

MR. PAGLIUCA: You discussed in your direct examination testimony, I think you referred to them as five stages of grooming. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And those five stages were discussed in the article by Winters and Jeglic, that was published in 2016. Do you recall that?

LISA ROCCHIO: That's one of the places that the stages of the grooming process is referred to, but it's referred to in multiple other literature.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, let's stick with that one for a moment, okay?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's a paper that you actually provided to the government in connection with your testimony. Do you recall that?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And so you're familiar with that publication, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And in that -- and that's a peer reviewed article, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And it was done by folks who are at John Jay College here in New York. Do you recall that?

LISA ROCCHIO: I don't recall where the authors reside, no.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall that part of the study involved using what they call six vignettes and providing those to 393 undergraduate students?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And the six vignettes were -- a vignette is like a story, right?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And so what the authors were doing were taking these six vignettes, five of them involving what you discussed, the five stages of grooming, and then a sixth vignette which was a non-grooming vignette. Do you recall that?

LISA ROCCHIO: I don't recall the exact number of vignettes as I sit here today, but I do recall that they were using vignettes in that study, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And they would need a controlled vignette for the purpose of this study which was the sixth vignette. Do you recall that?

LISA ROCCHIO: Not specifically as we speak here, but I'm happy to review it if you'd like.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. I think you have a binder there that has this at a tab.

JUDGE NATHAN: Dr. Rocchio, could you come little closer to the mic when you're answering?

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think it's tab 18. Do you have a tab 18?

LISA ROCCHIO: Yes, I do.

MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's the study that we're talking about?

LISA ROCCHIO: It's one of them, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: That's the study you and I are talking about right now, correct?

JUDGE NATHAN: May I have it?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Tell me when you've had enough time to review that.

LISA ROCCHIO: So, if your question is: Was one of the vignettes used a non-grooming condition, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, okay. And those vignettes were given to these 393 undergraduate students to review, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And they were asked questions about whether or not they could identify what you've called grooming behavior as grooming behavior, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: So this was one of the predictive studies, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And so that's the question they were asked: Can you predict this as being grooming behavior, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And these 390-some-odd college students who reviewed these vignettes weren't able to prospectively predict this behavior as grooming behavior, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And so one of the conclusions of the study is that the participants are not able to identify potential predatory behaviors that may be employed, correct?

MR. PAGLIUCA: And the certainty of these behaviors, what you're calling grooming behaviors' predictability, is very low according to this study, correct?

LISA ROCCHIO: The certainty of the behavior?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Predictability of the behavior?

LISA ROCCHIO: We're not able to reliably predict grooming behavior ahead of time, that is correct.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Prospectively?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Meaning, looking at something while it's going on and saying that is or is not grooming behavior?

LISA ROCCHIO: For a number of reasons, yes.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Those are all the questions I have, your Honor.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have a moment?

(Pause)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. POMERANTZ:

MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, you were asked about grooming the environment and about whether perpetrators deceive other adults around them. Dr. Rocchio, based on your experience, research, and training, if a perpetrator abused a child in front of another adult, is that grooming the environment?

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I object to this as being beyond the scope of my examination.

JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry, just a second. I'll sustain. The jury will disregard that response.

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have one moment?

(Pause)

MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, no further questions.

JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you, Dr. Rocchio.

LISA ROCCHIO: Thank you.

JUDGE NATHAN: You may step down.

(Witness excused)

JUDGE NATHAN: The government may call its next witness.

MS. COMEY: The government calls Juan Alessi.

JUDGE NATHAN: Juan Alessi may come forward. JUAN PATRICIO ALESSI, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

LISA ROCCHIO: My name is Juan Patricio Alessi. J-U-A-N. Patricio, P-A-T-R-I-C-I-O. Alessi, A-L-E-S-S-I.

JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. You may proceed, Ms. Comey.

MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.

Continue to next pageJuan Patricio Alessi — Direct/Cross/Voir Dire