Epstein Secrets

tness an individual ("Employee-1") who worked for Jeffrey Epstein immediately 35 EFTA00088837 followin

osed testimony concerns the experience of manipulated and coerced victims, rather than the intentions of perpetrators. 19 EFTA00088821 return to Epstein's home for sexual abuse, or why some occasionally expressed affection for the defendant and Epstein. Although Dr. will not testify about these spe

consideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Mino

elationship between the defendant and Epstein. For instance, to the extent the defense at trial argues that the defendant was merely an employee of Epstein's, this photograph is evidence to the contrary. Sixth, the defense argues that Government Exhibit 606 lacks evidentiary foundation, is hearsay, and i

ng than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged," which weighs in favor of admitting these exhibits under Rule 404(b)(2). United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990). b. Testimony of Employee-1 Employee-1 worked as a personal assistant for Epstein for approximately (October 11

ill preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall The Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. Hall did in 2009, in connection with Alleged Victim 4's civil suit against Epstein. Epstein admitted liabili

was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. Hall did in 2009, in connection with Alleged Victim 4's civil suit against Epstein. Epstein admitted liability for sexually abusing Alleged Victim 4 and the dispute was about the extent of damages only. Dr. Hall issued a report in

imony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. H

Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00068510 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990)). The Court therefore concludes that the minimal probative value of each of Dr. Hall's diagnoses of Alleged Victi

ill preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall The Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. Hall did in 2009, in connection with Alleged Victim 4's civil suit against Epstein. Epstein admitted liabili

was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. Hall did in 2009, in connection with Alleged Victim 4's civil suit against Epstein. Epstein admitted liability for sexually abusing Alleged Victim 4 and the dispute was about the extent of damages only. Dr. Hall issued a report in

imony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained by Jeffrey Epstein to evaluate Alleged Victim 4, which Dr. H

Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00087212 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990)). The Court therefore concludes that the minimal probative value of each of Dr. Hall's diagnoses of Alleged Victi

at the time of the events in question do not favor admission. Dr. Hall's report does not delineate clearly which conditions existed at the time of Epstein's abuse, but it appears that at least But at no point in his report does Dr. Hall suggest that these conditions—or any other diagnosed condition

Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 EFTA00089913 Woods, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990)). The Court therefore concludes that the minimal probative value of each of Dr. Hall's diagnoses of Alleged Victi