Epstein Secrets

761, 2014 WL 5366107 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (Marrero, J.); United States v. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (I lolwell, J.); and United Stales v. McClure, No. CRIM.A. 10-028, 2010 WL 3523030 (E.D. La. Sept. 1, 2010)).) The subpoenas found permissible in Yudung Zhu, in particular, sought a

N.Y. 2008) (Scheindlin, J.), as amended (Feb. 20, 2008)—has suggested applying a different standard, and that standard has generally been rejected. See United States v. Bergstein, 16-CR-746 (PKC), 2017 WL 6887596, at '4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) (Castel, J.) ("'iT]he overwhelming majority of district courts in th

Similarly, documents containing prior statements of a witness that are inconsistent with that witness's testimony at trial can be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, and so can be the proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR137(CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at •3 (D. Conn. Dec. 2

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

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

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

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told

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

not inconsistent), and whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. 2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understand the efense would not seek to admit Dr. Hall's testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told for t