Epstein Secrets

ss's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication at the time of the event observed or at the time of testifying. United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225, 229-30 (2d Cir. 1986) (cleaned up) (cited in Gov't Br. at 11 and Def. Br. at 12); accord United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265, 12

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

ss's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication at the time of the event observed or at the time of testifying. United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225, 229-30 (2d Cir. 1986) (cleaned up) (cited in Gov't Br. at 11 and Def. Br. at 12); accord United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265, 12

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

ss's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication at the time of the event observed or at the time of testifying. United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225, 229-30 (2d Cir. 1986) (cleaned up) (cited in Gov't Br. at 11 and Def. Br. at 12); accord United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265, 12

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