Epstein Secrets

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

ed the Nixon analysis" to "defense subpoena requests to third parties."); United States v. Rivera, No. 13-CR-149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1540517, at *4 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2015) ("This court agrees with the other district courts in the Second Circuit that the Pawn standard governs third-party subpoenas issued b

Similarly, documents containing prior statements of a witness that are inconsistent with that witness's testimony at trial can be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, and so can be the proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR137(CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at •3 (D. Conn. Dec. 2

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

d Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must "bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recol

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understand the efense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told for t