Epstein Secrets

tton issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v. Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States v. Elizabeth Holmes

challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons,

rs around the use of Section 1512(c)(2), a statute originally enacted to address evidence tampering and witness intimidation in the aftermath of the Enron scandal. According to the article, the statute's broad language makes it a crime to "obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding," which

oyment of SWAT teams and bomb squads. The FBI was involved in responding to these false emergencies, which included fake bomb scares for Fox News in Cleveland and a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles. Prosecutors noted that Garcia used voice-over-internet technology to conceal his identity and threatened

tton issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v. Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States v. Elizabeth Holmes

challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons,

tton issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district court's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v. Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) ("R. Kelly case"); United States v. Elizabeth Holmes

challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons,