Epstein Secrets

rrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which may, however, be prejudicial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) Advisory Committee's Note. In the Second Circuit, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) motions may be granted "where the challenged allegations are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and preju

el, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) 5 United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) 8, 9 United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) 5 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2421 3 18 U.S.C. § 2422 passim 18 U.S.C. § 2423 passim 18 U.S.C. § 2424 3 18 U.S.C. §

the S2 Indictment was returned on March 29, 2021, more than three months before trial. Indeed, it is telling that the defense cites no case in which the Second Circuit has held that a district court lacks the discretion to conduct a trial three months after a superseding indictment has been filed. Any such decisio

repeatedly noted that such evidence is not exculpatory. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 65 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 204 at 47-48 (citing, inter alia, United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish h[er] innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on speci

. Florida Bar No. 0042201 23 EFTA00177962 Page I of 55 Westlaw Page I 531 F.3d 197 (Cite as: 531 F.3d 197) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. UNITED STATES America, Appellee, Donald FELL, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 06-2882-cr. Argued: June 27, 2007. Decided: June 27, 2008. Back

e- clarant was, within the meaning of Rule 803(2), 'under the stress of excitement caused by the event condition.' " Id. (quoting United States . Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1017 (2d Cir.199 ). We find that the stressful events surrounding the statement support applying the excited utterance rule. See i

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

ed periods or uncharged events—to rebut the Government's evidence with respect to the charged crimes or events. Dkt. 65; see, e.g., United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) ("A defendant may not seek to establish his innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on [other