Epstein Secrets

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

idefaultifiles/ local_rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf. Moreover, the Rules do not describe—much less limit—what matters may be heard by what grand jury. Cf. SDNY Business Division Rule 6 (describing proceedings after an indictment has been returned). Rather, the Rules provide only that once an indictment is returned, "[t]he U.S. att

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

idefaultifiles/ local_rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf. Moreover, the Rules do not describe—much less limit—what matters may be heard by what grand jury. Cf. SDNY Business Division Rule 6 (describing proceedings after an indictment has been returned). Rather, the Rules provide only that once an indictment is returned, "[t]he U.S. att

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

idefault/files/ local_rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf. Moreover, the Rules do not describe—much less limit—what matters may be heard by what grand jury. Cf. SDNY Business Division Rule 6 (describing proceedings after an indictment has been returned). Rather, the Rules provide only that once an indictment is returned, "[t]he U.S. att

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

idefaultifiles/ local_rules/rules-2018-10-29.pdf. Moreover, the Rules do not describe—much less limit—what matters may be heard by what grand jury. Cf. SDNY Business Division Rule 6 (describing proceedings after an indictment has been returned). Rather, the Rules provide only that once an indictment is returned, "[t]he U.S. att