Epstein Secrets

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m

stions that are so fundamentally ambiguous or imprecise that the answer to them cannot legally be false. Id. at 372, 375; see also United States v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 878 (2d Cir. 1970). A question is fundamentally ambiguous only if reasonable people could not agree on its meaning in context. Lighte

list As a general matter, "district courts have authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identity of government witnesses." United States v. Cannon, 528 F.2d 296, 300 (2d Cir. 1975). In deciding whether to order accelerated disclosure of a witness list, courts consider whether a defendant has m