DOJ-OGR-00008096.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document508 _ Filed 11/24/21 Page11of25 appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318 (1974)). “Cross- examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of [her] testimony are tested.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. 1, “For over [seventy] years, federal courts have permitted the impeachment of government witnesses based on their mental condition at the time of the events testified to.” See United States v. Butt, 955 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Hiss, 88 F. Supp. 559, 559-60 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)). As the Second Circuit has explained, “A clinical history of mental illness is probative of the credibility of the witness.” Chnapkova v. Koh, 985 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 1993), abrogation on other ground recognized by United States v. Lanham, 541 Fed. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013). The Second Circuit has also held that a witness’s mental health condition at the time of her testimony is relevant and admissible. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d. 469, 476 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). In United States v. Sasso, the Second Circuit articulated this test for evaluating the admissibility of mental health condition evidence of a witness: In assessing the probative value of such evidence, the court should consider such factors as the nature of the psychological problem, the temporal recency or remoteness of the history, and whether the witness suffered from the problem at the time of the events to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately. Sasso, 59 F.3d at 347-48 (citing Koh, 985 F.2d at 81 (paranoid and delusional condition probative); id. at 81-82 (paranoid delusions five years earlier not too remote); United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (more than 10 years too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); Butt, 955 F.2d at DOJ-OGR-00008096