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

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

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

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

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

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe