Epstein Secrets

19) 278 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) 252 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 274 United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 137 United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 60, 77, 78, 85 United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042 (

. 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

whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his "free will," when he spoke, "was overborne." Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States

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

19) 278 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) 252 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 274 United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 137 United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 60, 77, 78, 85 United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042 (

. 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

whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his "free will," when he spoke, "was overborne." Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States

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

19) 186 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) 165 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 182 United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 97 xi EFTA00095078 United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 42, 53, 58 United States v. Corr, 5

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

whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his "free will," when he spoke, "was overborne." Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States

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

whether a witness was encouraged to speak, but whether his "free will," when he spoke, "was overborne." Id. at 188; see also, e.g., United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245, 253 (2d Cir. 2014). It follows that the Government need not inform a witness of the nature of its investigation, see United States

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