Epstein Secrets

ord, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (Sth Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 302, Ba

s typically apply to exculpatory material within the possession or control of the state. 3° For example, in the Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, the defendant sought recorded statements made to a youth counselor concerning an alleged assault. 3°7 The recorded statements were taken and possess

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

t. Impeachment evidence, as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We r

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat