Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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