Epstein Secrets

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

Hall's description falls short of demonstrating that this disorder "affect[s] her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately." Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348); see United States v. Lopez, 611 F.2d 44,45 (4th Cir. 1979) ("[M]any psychiatric problems ... whic

1,347-48 (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 States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006). Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exc

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

Hall's description falls short of demonstrating that this disorder "affect[s] her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately." Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348); see United States v. Lopez, 611 F.2d 44,45 (4th Cir. 1979) ("[M]any psychiatric problems ... whic

1,347-48 (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 States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006). Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exc

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

rd, Dr. Hall's description falls short of demonstrating that thisIM"affect[s] her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately." Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348); see United States v. Lopez, 611 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir. 1979) ("[M]any psychiatric problems ... whi

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 States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006). Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exc