Epstein Secrets

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 is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

r. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.

r. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.

) 40, 41 United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2019) 106 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 52 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 176 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) 78, 81, 103 United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 179 59 141 26, 29 104 84, 103 52 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 17 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 207, 210 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 108 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 99 Bochese v. Town

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 is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.