Epstein Secrets

d jury drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00100142 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

d July drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00077807 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

d July drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00039622 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

e population of the same "division" in which the offense 199 EFTA00095291 occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and subst

d jury drawn from the population of the same "division" in which the offense occurred and she assumes she will ultimately be tried. To the contrary, the Second Circuit has rejected a similar claim. In Bahna, a defendant in the Eastern District of New York was initially convicted at a trial held at the Brooklyn cou

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00103200 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

ictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused." United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.

TA00023911 --- PAGE BREAK --- (denying request for bill of particulars that would identify alleged co-conspirators and victims); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("[D]emands for particular information with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will char

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

hers allegedly took in furtherance of a conspiracy, nor must it set forth all the evidence the government intends to introduce."); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("[D]emands for particular information with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will cha

ictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused." United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.

TA00030944 --- PAGE BREAK --- (denying request for bill of particulars that would identify alleged co-conspirators and victims); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("[D]emands for particular information with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will char