Epstein Secrets

is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); cf. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00100086 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287,307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude,

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); cf. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00077751 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); cf. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00039566 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); cf. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true

jury is best equipped to determine the meaning that a defendant 119 EFTA00095211 assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).48 An exception arises when language in a question is "fundamentally ambiguous," that is "when it is not a phrase

o prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, 139 EFTA00095231 "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

is fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise, the truthfulness of [the defendant's] answers is an issue for the jury." Id. at 304; see United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); cf. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 374 (finding the evidence insufficient where some answers "were literally true

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00103144 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

294 United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259 United States v. Joseph berg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cr. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cr. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir.

) 294 United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

) 294 United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

ed States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 169 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) 169, 170, 172, 173 United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 121 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 202 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.

A00095086 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 104 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 163, 164 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 140 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 135, 136 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

) 294 United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir