Epstein Secrets

268712 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) 45 United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 242, 243, 247, 262 United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) 241, 242 United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) 139 United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

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 only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment." 159 EFTA00

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

268712 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) 45 United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 242, 243, 247, 262 United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) 241, 242 United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) 139 United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

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 only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment." 159 EFTA00

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

es v. Morgan, 113 F.3d 1230 (2d Cir. 1997) 34 United States v. Mostafa, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 159, 160, 163, 171 United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) 159 United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) 97 United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

y not be stricken." Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePahna, 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 only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment." United Stat

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

y 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 only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment." 159 EFTA00

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame