Epstein Secrets

eclude the opinion. In this circumstance, the lasting mental impact of a crime is at best "minimally probative" of whether that crime was committed. United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 329 (2d Cir. 2019). It also carries a high risk of Rule 403 prejudice by suggesting that the psychological impact on All

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

eclude the opinion. In this circumstance, the lasting mental impact of a crime is at best "minimally probative" of whether that crime was committed. United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 329 (2d Cir. 2019). It also carries a high risk of Rule 403 prejudice by suggesting that the psychological impact on All

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

eclude the opinion. In this circumstance, the lasting mental impact of a crime is at best "minimally probative" of whether that crime was committed. United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 329 (2d Cir. 2019). It also carries a high risk of Rule 403 prejudice by suggesting that the psychological impact on All

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