Epstein Secrets

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. I. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Un

83 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267 United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) 248 United States v. Marianna Vljua, No. 15 Cr. 2

Jury Wheel to the population of the Manhattan "Division"—the defendant fails to establish unfair underrepresentation under the second prong of the Duren test. Moreover, the defendant has not established that any disparity resulted from systemic exclusion of a particular group. Accordingly, the motion

inous discovery in combination with some guidanceabout what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267 United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) 248 United States v. Mariamma Vijua, No. 15 Cr. 2

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00077829 establish a prima facie viol

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267 United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) 248 United States v. Mariamma Vijua, No. 15 Cr. 2

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00039644 establish a prima facie viol

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

antees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cr

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

(S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. Uni

783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267 United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) 248 United States v. Mariamma Vijua, No. 15 Cr. 2

rantees a criminal defendant a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community." United States v. Rios, 97 F.3d 648, 654 (2d Cir. 1996). In Duren v. Missouri, the Supreme Court articulated a three part test that defendants must meet in order to 197 EFTA00103222 establish a prima facie viol

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four