Epstein Secrets

nalysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d 687 (1996) (Judicial deference [94] to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wane, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

B THE PALM BEACH POST • SATURDAY, AUGUST 5. 2006 METRO REPORT S C Weather, traffic, breaking news and special reports PalmBeachPosLcom/local Armstrong Howard POLICE BLOTTER JUPITER — An Ill-year-obi was arrested and charged with fatally stabbing a 21-year-old man during a house party melee earl

onflict. lb accept the bait. as the Israelis did in assaulting Leb- anon and as America did in Iraq. is to risk stepping into a trap. As Law- rence Wright says in his new book, The Zooming Tower, the master of this approach is Osama bin Laden: "His strategy was to continually at- tack until the U.S.

ng principle that "[t]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large part to the separation of powers doctrine. Id.; U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3. Whether to investigate po

D.Me.2001) federal courts apply federal law when ad ressing the work product doctrine, even in di- versity cases lacking any federal ques- tion); 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Feder- al Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d. § 2023 (2d ed. 1994) ("At least since the adoption of Rule 26(13)(3) in 1970, it has

. R. Crim. P. 15(d)(1)-(2). ~I The Advisory Committee recommended various changes to the rule in 1974, which Congress modified somewhat in 1975. See Wright, supra note 210, § 241, at 7-8. The changes discussed in this Article were initiated by the Advisory Committee. 222 Wright, supra note 210, § 244, a

lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,

disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control

d with fairness." In addition, the vicinage provision of 196 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(8) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005). 197 Td. 3771 (a)(8). 198 See generally Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure 321, at 357-58. 199 See supra notes 158-174 and accompanying text. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017740 --- PAGE B

246 150 Cong. Rec. $10,911 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphases added). 247 Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)). 248 150 Cong. Rec. $4264 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (emphasis added). 249 See 18 U.S.C.