DOJ-OGR-00011144.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document692 Filed 11/22/21 Page6of17 The Court will preclude Dr. Hall’s testimony on these psychological diagnoses. Applying the considerations in Sasso, the diagnoses have little probative value. First, the report is now over 12 years old. Courts in this circuit regularly find that diagnoses more than 10 years old lack probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) (“A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be irrelevant.”). The diagnoses are therefore too remote to bear on Alleged Victim 4’s credibility as a witness at trial. Second, the nature of the conditions and their effect on memory or perception at the time of the events in question do not favor admission. Dr. Hall’s report does not delineate clearly which conditions existed at the time of Epstein’s abuse, but it appears that at least || Pe But at no point in his report does Dr. Hall suggest that these conditions—or any other diagnosed conditions—may have affected Alleged Victim 4’s perception of events or her recollection of those events. Like in Sasso, “there was no indication that [the witness] was delusional or paranoid, or had any difficulties in memory or perception.” 59 F.3d at 348. In its response, the Defense homes in first o [ie DOJ-OGR-00011144