Epstein Secrets

d States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00099964 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

4 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions. 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

ty." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120,124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2dCir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tra

e, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martin

ed States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00077629 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

y." United States v. Stringer; 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

ed States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00039444 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

y." United States v. Stringer; 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

2007) 114 United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 82 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 48 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 151, 174, 179 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 105 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

y." United States v. Stringer; 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

uppression Motion Should Be Denied Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous fa

ed States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00103022 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

y." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, bu