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

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

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

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

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

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