Epstein Secrets

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

ecause Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not co

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

ecause Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not co

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

ecause Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not co

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

ecause Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not co

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

ecause Chemical Bank involved communications between a party subject to a protective order and prosecutors during a pending criminal investigation. See Chemical Bank, 154 F.R.D. at 93. It was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to assume that Judge McMahon was concerned with those sorts of communications, not co