Epstein Secrets

't Br. at 10). But, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged 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 ratio

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

't Br. at 10). But, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged 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 ratio

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe

osis Lot1 1 hut, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged 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 ratio

pend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually "inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019,1024-25 (2d Cir. 1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and whether the Defe