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 is: That articulation comes awful close to the standard that a prosecutor would be flying under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 in terms of primary source Rule 16 discovery. I'm asking you how the materials withheld, in effect with the blessing of the civil div

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 is: That articulation comes awful close to the standard that a prosecutor would be flying under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 in terms of primary source Rule 16 discovery. I'm asking you how the materials withheld, in effect with the blessing of the civil div

' The Government moves to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law pr

ntities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation. Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 27 permits a party to "prove an official record . . . in the same manner as in a civil action." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44(a)(1),

t "this Program is entitled to confidentiality, privileges (mediation, settlement and all other pertinent privileges), S1 It is true that, in 1996, the Second Circuit held that Rule 408 "does not require exclusion of evidence relating to a civil settlement in a criminal trial." Manko v. United States, 87 F.3d 50,

o subpoena under Rule 17(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A. Compliance with the subpoena would be unreasonable or oppressive. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(2), the Court "may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2). The

citations omitted). ht determining how much weight to accord the presumption after the defendant has come forward to meet his burden of production, the Second Circuit explains: A judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to giv

the offender to the custody of the United States Marshal for proceedings under Section 3148. In this instance, judicial officers are also bound by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e) provides that "[t]he court must declare the bail forfeited if a condition of the bond is b