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))

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

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))

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

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))

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understand the efense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told for t