Epstein Secrets

ns at issue, each of these categories and subcategories of documents could improperly influence witnesses and jurors. Under the approach ratified by the Supreme Court in Robbins Tire, BOP properly withheld these records under Exemption 7(A). B. BOP Properly Withheld Records and Information Pursuant to FOIA Exempti

Y. Mar. 24, 2014) 22, 23 Crooke,- v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U

ns at issue, each of these categories and subcategories of documents could improperly influence witnesses and jurors. Under the approach ratified by the Supreme Court in Robbins Tire, BOP properly withheld these records under Exemption 7(A). B. BOP Properly Withheld Records and Information Pursuant to FOIA Exempti

Y. Mar. 24, 2014) 22, 23 Crooke,- v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U

ns at issue, each of these categories and subcategories of documents could improperly influence witnesses and jurors. Under the approach ratified by the Supreme Court in Robbins Tire, BOP properly withheld these records under Exemption 7(A). B. BOP Properly Withheld Records and Information Pursuant to FOIA Exempti

Y. Mar. 24, 2014) 22, 23 Crooke,- v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 789 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 8 Cut for Nall Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 331 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2003) 8 DOD v. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487(1994) 18 Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1985) 20 Eil v. U

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

orney could neither confirm nor deny the information presented by the 'external party.'" Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States Dept of Justice, 1992 WL 119127 at '3 (D.D.C. May 13, 1992) (citing Bony v. United States, 740 F. Supp. 888, 891 (D.D.C. 1990) ("Rule 6(e) does not create a type o