Epstein Secrets

this congressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of t

ght of the conference report on Rule 16, compelling disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for

p. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 20 ii EFTA00027309 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 34 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Defritas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. 7, 8 Jan. 31, 2011) 12, 17 United

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Biyan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out

3d 213 (2d Cir. 2005) 12 United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 20 ii EFTA00031265 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. Defreitas, No. 07 Cr. 543 (DLI), 2011 WL 317964, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. 7, 8 Jan. 31, 2011) 12, 17 Unite

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Bryan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out