Epstein Secrets

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Coop

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Coop

1974) 137 vii EFTA00099948 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Mr v. Willi

7 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) 169 United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 77 United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) 241,250 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

nt to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). "This standard is an exacting one, and o

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

nt to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). "This standard is an exacting one, and o

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

nt to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). "This standard is an exacting one, and o

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

ictim-3's experiences in the Indictment "may not be stricken" "regardless of how prejudicial the language is ...." Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 1013 (quoting DePalma, 461 F. Supp. at 797). the Indictment and in this memorandum, the Government has provided extensive detail regarding Minor Victim-3's anticipated

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

ant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken." Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). "This standard is an exacting one, and o