Epstein Secrets

t "prejudice" the court should consider — "all relevant evidence is `prejudicial' in that it `may prejudice the party against whom it is admitted." Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1988). 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or again

bject to use of the documents there: "Epstein is not a party to that suit, which involves Jane Does #1 and #2's allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida violated their rights. Accordingly, without intervening in the case, he cannot raise any objections to the use of the correspondence in

t "prejudice" the court should consider — "all relevant evidence is 'prejudicial' in that it 'may prejudice the party against whom it is admitted." Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1988). 4. The existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or again

bject to use of the documents there: "Epstein is not a party to that suit, which involves Jane Does #1 and #2's allegations that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida violated their rights. Accordingly, without intervening in the case, he cannot raise any objections to the use of the correspondence in

660 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) ("the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullen, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a difference between "those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those which ar

er for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "[t]he law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of