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))

m 4 is relevant to Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also cause substantial delay by opening the door to rebuttal evidence by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's mental health, which would likely lead to mini-trials on irrelevant issues. Next, the disclosure states that Dr. Hall will testify to th

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))

m 4 is relevant to Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also cause substantial delay by opening the door to rebuttal evidence by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's mental health, which would likely lead to mini-trials on irrelevant issues. Next, the disclosure states that Dr. Hall will testify to th

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))

m 4 is relevant to Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also cause substantial delay by opening the door to rebuttal evidence by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's mental health, which would likely lead to mini-trials on irrelevant issues. Next, the disclosure states that Dr. Hall will testify to th