Epstein Secrets

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

ave been different." Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)); see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 135 ("[T]he prosecutor must disclose evidence if, without such disclosure, a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome of a tr

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

ave been different." Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)); see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 135 ("[T]he prosecutor must disclose evidence if, without such disclosure, a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome of a tr

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

ave been different." Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1893 (2017) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted)); see also Coppa, 267 F.3d at 135 ("[T]he prosecutor must disclose evidence if, without such disclosure, a reasonable probability will exist that the outcome of a tr

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

p. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 20 ii EFTA00027309 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 34 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Defritas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. 7, 8 Jan. 31, 2011) 12, 17 United

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

this congressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of t

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

. 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

3d 213 (2d Cir. 2005) 12 United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 20 ii EFTA00031265 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Defreitas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. 7, 8 Jan. 31, 2011) 12, 17 Unite

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

igation extends to "not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key [G]overnment witness." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001). "Evidence is material within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef