Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The De

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The De

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The De

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