Epstein Secrets

ates v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Milan, No. 08-760,2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28,2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Milo! 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

ejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession at trial"); United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Inculpatory statements are not involuntary when they result from a desire to cooperate, or from a defendant's ig

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

ejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession at trial"); United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92, 100 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Inculpatory statements are not involuntary when they result from a desire to cooperate, or from a defendant's ig

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu