Epstein Secrets

9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so

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

9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so

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

9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so

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