Epstein Secrets

ts operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials." United States v. Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974). Courts are "mindful of the policy that `nowhere is the public's claim to each person's evidence stronger than in the con

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

its operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials." United States I Calandra , 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974). Courts are "mindful of the policy that `nowhere is the public's claim to each person's evidence stronger than in the con

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

ts operation generally is unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 -10- EFTA00179109 (1974). Courts are "mindful of the policy that `nowhere is the public's claim to each person's evidence stro

rposes of Doe, and, thus, the subpoenas are enforceable (regardless of the computers' contents). Id. at 93-94 (citation omitted)." "As explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a b