Epstein Secrets

this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United States v. Walker , 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritt

ents , are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns - specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repre

d this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United States I Walker , 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritt

ents , are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns - specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense-specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repre

efendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EFTA00179118 United States v. Walker, 2007 WL 1743273 (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2007). The court wrote: Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritte

lements, are separate offenses for purposes of the Sixth Amendment because they were violations of the laws of two separate sovereigns—specifically the State of Mississippi and the United States. Therefore, because the Sixth Amendment is offense- specific, Avants's statements during the 1967 interview, when he was repres