Epstein Secrets

2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately perceive or recall" relevant events); see also United States v. Cooper, No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder). Last, the Defense points t

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

2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately perceive or recall" relevant events); see also United States v. Cooper, No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder). Last, the Defense points t

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

2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately perceive or recall" relevant events); see also United States v. Cooper, No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder). Last, the Defense points t

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