Epstein Secrets

k probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated an

istinction—permitting cross-examination on drug use but excluding a formal diagnosis of addiction—in several cases. E.g., DiPaolo, 804 F.2d at 230; Dobson v. Walker, 150 F. App'x 49,52 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that cross- examination about a witness's drug use before witnessing a murder would be admissible, but

k probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated an

istinction—permitting cross-examination on drug use but excluding a formal diagnosis of addiction—in several cases. E.g., DiPaolo, 804 F.2d at 230; Dobson v. Walker, 150 F. App'x 49,52 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that cross- examination about a witness's drug use before witnessing a murder would be admissible, but

k probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated an

uch a distinction—permitting cross-examination on drug use but excluding a formal diagnosis ofilM—in several cases. E.g., DiPaolo, 804 F.2d at 230; Dobson v. Walker, 150 F. App'x 49,52 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that cross- examination about a witness's drug use before witnessing a murder would be admissible, but