DOJ-OGR-00011148.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document692- Filed 11/22/21 Page10of17 the diagnoses in Dr. Hall’s report are adequately tied to Alleged Victim 4’s credibility as a witness. See Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2. Even if any diagnosis were probative, the Court further finds that Rule 403 prejudice outweighs. First, the testimony may confuse jurors with old diagnoses that have little connection to the conduct at issue or Alleged Victim 4’s credibility today. See id. Confusion is particularly likely here given that Dr. Hall’s report is at times unclear and even contradictory, as with the confusion ov explained above. /d. Second, the Court takes account of the risk that jurors will stereotype a witness vi) i _ or incorrectly assume that a diagnosed mental condition renders the witness untrustworthy. See Hernandez, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5. Third, mental health diagnoses are of a particularly sensitive nature and, if not relevant, the witness’s privacy should not be invaded. Paredes, 2001 WL 1478810, at *2 (citing In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (2d Cir. 1992)). And fourth, Dr. Hall’s testimony would be cumulative and cause undue delay. The Government anticipates that several aspects of Alleged Victim 4’s mental health history will be admitted either on direct or cross-examination, including that Alleged Victim 4 currently Ji eS Second Circuit has previously held that where relevant issues of mental conditions can be aired on cross-examination, the district court may preclude the witness’s medical records and expert testimony. Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196; Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (applying Vitale and Sasso). The Court concludes that here, the cross-examination identified by the Government on Alleged Victim 4’s current medication for ee. along with lines of cross-examination unrelated to mental health, will provide the jury a sufficiently “discriminating appraisal” of Alleged Victim 4’s credibility such that Dr. Hall’s testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v. 10 DOJ-OGR-00011148