Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00068504 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0006

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00087206 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0008

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC 0: DATE FILED:i 102121 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA00089907 The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Id. 4 EFTA0008

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