Epstein Secrets

investigation was flawed' because the department `failed to ask basic, critical questions about the justification for the use of force." CNN (2/22, Jimenez, Vera, Levenson, 89.21M) reports on its website that Sheneen McClain "cried [while] reading" the report about the death of her son. She told CNN, "I

AP (2/22, Lavoie, Rankin) calls the vote "a dramatic turnaround for a state that has executed more people in its long history than any other." The Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch (2/22, Green, 401K) reports Virginia "has executed 113 people in modern times, second only to Texas, since the U.S. Supreme Cou

rement. Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. Thus, a class-wide proceeding must be able to generate common answers that drive the litigation. Id.; see also Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014) (observing that "a class meets Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement when the common qu

Phillips, Sarah M. Harris, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C.; J. Tracy Walker, IV, Robert L. Hodges, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. JUDGES: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Keenan joined.

"wheres, whens and with whoms"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particulars

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

"wheres, whens and with whoms"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D 'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particular

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

"wheres, whens and with whoms"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D 'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particular

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

"wheres, whens and with whores"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Tomes, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particulars

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

"wheres, whens and with whoms"' are "beyond the scope of a bill of particulars." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D 'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particular

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r