Epstein Secrets

ad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to in

., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 25 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 20, 22 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Te

., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 25 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 20, 22 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Te

ad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to in

80) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 345) (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960); Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 216-17 (1956); Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 495 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment)). A court should invoke its supervisory power of suppression when "t

lth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805 2001) 25 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 20, 22 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (MM. No. I6MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. &

ad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to in

80) (quoting McNabb, 318 U.S. at 345) (citing Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223 (1960); Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 216-17 (1956); Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 495 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment)). A court should invoke its supervisory power of suppression when "t

tt, Recusal and the Supreme Court, 56 Hastings L.J_ 657, 678-79 (2005) (citing United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 211-12 & n.12 (1980); Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1980)). 255 Model R. Prof] Conduct 4.4(a) (2007); see also ABA Criminal Justice Study, Standard 4-4.3 (1993). 256 See Fed. R.

viduals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA extends rights