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

d States v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225,233 United States v. Mantilla), 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Stipp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States

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

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00100142 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

(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

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

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

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00077807 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

(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

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

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

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00039622 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

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

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and subst

(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

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

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

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00103200 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen