Epstein Secrets

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare forcross- examination. These representations are sufficien

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th