Epstein Secrets

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

hat each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor."' Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jut), Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government