Epstein Secrets

ive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341,347-48 (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

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

ive or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341,347-48 (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

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

ve or to recall events or to testify accurately. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 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 histo

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