Epstein Secrets

r. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

9, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015) 19 United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002) 30, 33 United Sta

that the requested evidence is material." Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (internal citation omitted). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Armstrong, while Rule 16 authorizes 10 EFTA00027321 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 34 defendants to exami

. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alamelz, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

9, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 United States v. Barcelo, 628 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2015) 19 United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862 (2002) 30, 33 United Sta

t sympathy, compassion, or compromise from the jury. The records Thomas seeks are no more discoverable than the nullification evidence precluded in Armstrong and its progeny. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462- 63 (defendant not entitled to discovery on race of other narcotics defendants to aid in selective p

ord, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (Sth Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 302, Ba

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