Epstein Secrets

351 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 243 United States v. Butler, No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) 208, 211 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) 110 United States v. Caming, 968 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1992) 165 xi EFTA00099952 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr.

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

it may compel the production of documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses, as it deems necessary." Id. at 421-22 (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v.

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

it may compel the production of documentary evidence or the testimony of witnesses, as it deems necessary." Id. at 421-22 (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v.

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

, 222 P.3d 925 (Cob. 2009) 10 People v. Mason, 989 P.2d 757 (Colo. 1999) 8 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) passim United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) 6 United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) 6 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) 2, 15 United States v. Miller

overnment there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain th . For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in Manindell, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, Martindell does not speak to what showing would hav

s and that require a subpoena duces tenon of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with Manindell because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adver