Epstein Secrets

nts to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341,347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069,2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3,2021); United

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

nts to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341,347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069,2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3,2021); United

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

nts to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069, 2021 WL 5105861, at ■2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021); Uni

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