Epstein Secrets

r purpose; (2) it is relevant to a material issue in dispute; and (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect...." LaFlam, 369 F.3d at 156. There is no proper purpose for the admission of any of the alleged perjury which occurred decades after the charges in Counts 1-4.

under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any proper purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.2004). The rule, however, is not "a carte blanche to admit prejudicial extrinsic act evidence...." United States v. Scott

ON 11 Certificate of Service 13 EFTA00097313 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 7 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir.1991) 1 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 3 United States v. Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y

under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any proper purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.2004). The rule, however, is not "a carte blanche to admit prejudicial extrinsic act evidence...." United States v. Scott

ON 11 Certificate of Service 13 EFTA00097360 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 7 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir.1991) 1 United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 3 United States v. Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

"no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish `similarity' of offenses, and each case depends largely on its own facts." United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). For instance, in United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

"no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish `similarity' of offenses, and each case depends largely on its own facts." United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). For instance, in United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

"no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish `similarity' of offenses, and each case depends largely on its own facts." United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). For instance, in United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980