Epstein Secrets

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

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

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

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

(B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court c

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