Epstein Secrets

ovide the jury a sufficiently "discriminating appraisal" of Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr. Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00068510 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990))

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

ovide the jury a sufficiently "discriminating appraisal" of Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr. Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00087212 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990))

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

ovide the jury a sufficiently "discriminating appraisal" of Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr. Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00089913 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990))

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe