Epstein Secrets

n, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2011) 82 United States v. Butler, 351 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 243 United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) 208, 211 United States v

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

ying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime." United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)). In the event that p

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

n, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2011) 82 United States v. Butler, 351 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 243 United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) 208, 211 United States v

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

ying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime." United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)). In the event that p

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

n, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 156 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2011) 56 United States v. Butler, 351 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 160 EFTA00095077 United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) 139, 141

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

ying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime." United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)). In the event that p

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

ying crimes to which the perjury relates, where proof of the alleged perjury requires proof of knowledge of the underlying crime." United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) (Lynch, J.) (permitting joinder of defendants under Rule 8(b)). In the event that p

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame