Epstein Secrets

mes when even though what I just said about the Supreme Court's view of gag orders and prior restraints and so forth, that in the Don King case, in the Second Circuit, the circuit upheld restrictions there on who could speak, the trial participants. And, again, I would say it's not so much a categorical either/o

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The Court and all parties appearing telephonically) THE COURT: Good afternoon. This is Judge Engelmayer. Let me begin by asking my law clerk to confirm that all counsel are on the line. THE LAW CLERK: Hi, Judge. That's correct. And the court report

mes when even though what I just said about the Supreme Court's view of gag orders and prior restraints and so forth, that in the Don King case, in the Second Circuit, the circuit upheld restrictions there on who could speak, the trial participants. And, again, I would say it's not so much a categorical either/o

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (The Court and all parties appearing telephonically) THE COURT: Good afternoon. This is Judge Engelmayer. Let me begin by asking my law clerk to confirm that all counsel are on the line. THE LAW CLERK: Hi, Judge. That's correct. And the court report

transferred to Judge Rakoff for trial. 9/9/ 19 U.S. v. Sean Stewart, 15 Cr. 287 (JSR) (Enzer/Cooper) (USAO # 2015R001626): In the wake of a recent Second Circuit decision reversing the trial conviction of Sean Stewart, a former managing director at the investment banking firm Perella Weinberg Partners, for t

ct and failing to appear for drug testing while contesting the drug charges. We called three witnesses at the hearing and, after deliberation, Judge Engelmayer found Jaquez guilty on both contested specifications. Sentencing is scheduled for August 8. 2. Upcoming Trials and Hearings: 8/26/19 U.S. v. Sanc

the case. The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessernann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubers, i

63. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18- Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (

s also provided several articles on the subject of grooming that convince the Court that it is a well-accepted theory in Dr. Rocchio's field. Though the Second Circuit has not ruled on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abus