Epstein Secrets

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

. 5, 2000) 264 United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR) 286 United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 300 United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) 261 United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 19 United States v.

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

s directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "[c]

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

. 5, 2000) 264 United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR) 286 United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 300 United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) 261 United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 19 United States v.

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

s directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank,No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "lc]o

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199

. 5, 2000) 264 United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR) 286 United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 300 United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) 261 United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 19 United States v.

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of im

s directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank,No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "lc]o

States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 166 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise"), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 27, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 28, 77, 33 81 1 F.3d 87 (2d

ffith, 99 Cr. (HB), 2000 WL 1253265 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) 172 United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 208 United States v. Halkbank, 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) 170 United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 16 United States v. Halp

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury 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 gover

s directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "[c]ourt

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 19

. 5, 2000) 264 United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR) 286 United States v. Guzman, 337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 300 United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) 261 United States v. Hallahan, 756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 19 United States v.

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm

s directive, courts in this Circuit regularly defer ruling on a multiplicity motion until after the conclusion of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Halkbank, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) (denying pretrial motion to dismiss multiplicitous count and noting that "Ic]