Epstein Secrets

s under the influence of drugs or narcotics or alcohol at the time of observation of events in dispute or at the time the witness is testifying. As Wigmore points out, however, a general habit of intemperance tells us nothing of the witness's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication

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

s under the influence of drugs or narcotics or alcohol at the time of observation of events in dispute or at the time the witness is testifying. As Wigmore points out, however, a general habit of intemperance tells us nothing of the witness's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication

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

s under the influence of drugs or narcotics or alcohol at the time of observation of events in dispute or at the time the witness is testifying. As Wigmore points out, however, a general habit of intemperance tells us nothing of the witness's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication

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