Epstein Secrets

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

material is in the possession of a third- party, a defendant has standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena of that material. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (law firm could intervene and join motion to quash grand jury subpoena issued to private 1

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jut), Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government

grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020) ("It follows that when officers act with `an