Epstein Secrets

e of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.' Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 316-17). The possibility of an economic reward is classic impeachment material. United States

eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i

e of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.' Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 316-17). The possibility of an economic reward is classic impeachment material. United States

eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i

o one of Boonma's claims, even if this court retained jurisdiction. The only connection to Texas is that the defendant, who is now incarcerated in Kentucky, was a Texas resident at the time he was traveling abroad in Thailand. Additionally, to deny defendant's motion to dismiss based on forum non conv

must deter- mine if we have jurisdiction under it. Jur- isdiction cannot be conferred on us by the will or the waiver of the parties. Dela- ware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). If jur- isdiction does not exist, we are bound to dismiss the suit however long it has b