Epstein Secrets

g the subpoena must also show that the "the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds as recognized

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). It is not sufficient for a party to show only that th

above. EFTA00010124 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 8 rule as a discovery device." United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 144 (3d Cir. 1980); see Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109. Such an expedition is precluded by Nixon. 418 U.S. at 700. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should quash the

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

ruthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime." (cleaned up)). Indeed, the First Circuit in a case cited favorably both by the Second Circuit and by the Defense concluded that there was an inadequate link between borderline personality disorder and a witness's credibility. United States v

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

s."). If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has "broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any, to the opposing

ruthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime." (cleaned up)). Indeed, the First Circuit in a case cited favorably both by the Second Circuit and by the Defense concluded that there was an inadequate link between borderline personality disorder and a witness's credibility. United States v

o, No. 19 Cr. 472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (citing Bowman Data, Co., 341 U.S. at 220 (1951)); see also United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that the rule "allows parties to subpoena documents and objects to be introduced at criminal trials"),

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

o, No. 19 Cr. 472 (PAC), 2021 WL 980004, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (citing Bowman Dab), Co., 341 U.S. at 220 (1951)); see also United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that the rule "allows parties to subpoena documents and objects to be introduced at criminal trials"),

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

ly three to four weeks before trial. E.g., Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK); Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK); Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC); Ulbricht, 14 Cr. 68 (KBF). As the Government has noted for some time now, the Government intends to match or even go above and beyond that practice in this c

d jury drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

fore trial. E.g., Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK); Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK); Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); Levin, 15 Cr. 101 (KBF); Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC); Ulbricht, 14 Cr. 68 (KBF). As the Government has noted for some time now, the Government intends to match or even go above and beyond that practice in this c

e population of the same "division" in which the offense 199 EFTA00095291 occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

the case. The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessernann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, i

will testify but actually "summarize the experts' opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Mer

mary of the bases of the expert's opinion." Id. The content of the expert notice must actually "summarize the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017), abrogated on other grounds by Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). "Merely identifying the general

posed testimony is relevant. See Dauber! v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993); Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Daubers, 509 U.S. at 591 (internal

al without such production,' and that `the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition. United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Chambers, 751 F.

tation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) ("[A] criminal subpoena should not be used as 'a discovery device,' but instead should be used only as 'a mechanism for obtaining specific adm