Epstein Secrets

g Evidence — Backdooring Hearsay 31 Criminal Law Bulletin 99 (1995) Forfeiture and the Constitution, New York Law Journal, p. 1 (January 11, 1994) Second Circuit Evidentiary Ruling Includes Caution to Prosecutors, New York Law Journal, p. 1 (April 1, 1994) Abuse of Power in the Prosecutor's Office 6 The Worl

2 U.S. Congress, House Judiciary Subcommittee (July 27, 2000) (Testimony on H.R. 4015: Fair Justice Act of 2000)(testimony) State of Louisiana v. Kyles (October 31, 1997)(testimony) State of Connecticut v. Valentin (March, 1995)(testimony) Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Davidson (April, 1992)(testimon

ing a conversation with an agent or a witness is no less discoverable than if that same information were contained in an email." Id. Similarly, the Second Circuit has recognized that attorney proffers are equally subject to Brady obligations as witness proffers. States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d

cluding Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), and Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), and Judge Berman's Individual Practices, Mr. Epstein requests immediate identification and disclosure of all mater

cluding Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), and Kyles v. Whitney, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), and Judge Berman's Individual Practices, Mr. Epstein requests immediate identification and disclosure of all mater

that attorney proffers are equally subject to Brady obligations as witness proffers. States V. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149, 157, 165 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that "[a]n attorney proffer apprises the government of what the client would be able to provide by way of testimony" and finding

"during a conversation with an agent or a witness is no less discoverable than if that same information were contained in an email." Id. Similarly, the Second Circuit has recognized that attorney proffers are equally subject to Brady obligations as witness proffers. States V. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d

n re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) passim 26 In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) 15 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 19 N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 26 Nat'l Res. Del Council v. United States Ening. Prot.

on. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); see also United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2001). Evidence is "material" in this sense only if "its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of a trial." United States v. Bagley, 473

material." United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 111 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing cases). With regard to the timing of disclosing material under Giglio, the Second Circuit, in Coppa, rejected the argument that such material should be disclosed when defendants make a 7 EFTA00027318 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-0

n re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) passim 26 In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) 15 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 19 N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975) 26 Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. United States Envtl. Prot.

on. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); see also United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2001). Evidence is "material" in this sense only if "its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of a trial." United States v. Bagley, 473

material." United States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85, 111 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing cases). With regard to the timing of disclosing material under Giglio, the Second Circuit, in Coppa, rejected the argument that such material should be disclosed when defendants make a 7 EFTA00031274 --- PAGE BREAK --- demand for it.

22 specific requests (the "Requests"). The letter also makes a general request for materials pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), followed by 10 "specific Brady requests." As an initial matter, we take seriously our disclosure obligations, incl

me that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon the information efficaciously." United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). Immediate disclosure of such material is not warranted simply because the defendant prefers it. See, e.g., United States v. Wey, 15 Cr. 611