Epstein Secrets

nst him if this is 174 EFTA00100141 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avo id prejud icial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

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

n, 896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) 236 United States v. Thompson, No. 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 274 United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 266, 268, 271 United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) 251 United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Ci

9 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 231, 232 United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00077806 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

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

n, 896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) 236 United States v. Thompson, No. 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 274 United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 266, 268, 271 United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) 251 United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Ci

9 United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 231, 232 United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00039621 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

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

Cr. 378 (AJN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 182, 189, 192 United States v. Thompson, 896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) 156 United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 174, 176, 179 United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) 165 United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Ci

ates v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) 169, 170, 172, 173 United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 121 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 202 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 153 United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (2d Ci

h the defendant committed the crime charged, or a preview of the Government's evidence or legal theories." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569; see also Torres, 901 F.2d at 234 ("Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' (quoting Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 4

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

n, 896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) 236 United States v. Thompson, No. 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 274 United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 266, 268, 271 United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) 251 United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Ci

United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim United States v. Kaplan, 758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 231, 232 United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00103199 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

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