Epstein Secrets

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company f

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company f

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company f

he district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company fo

assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record." United States v. Maslin, 356 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2004). In assessing the evidence, the Second Circuit applies a burden-shifting framework. The defendant carries the initial burden of making a non-frivolous showing that the two counts in fact charge

and jury clause, while a defendant must show prejudice in order to prevail on a variance claim." Id. (quoting Frank, 156 F.3d at 337 n.5); see also Rigas, 490 F.3d at 226 ("[A] defendant alleging variance must show `substantial prejudice' to warrant reversal."). "A defendant cannot demonstrate that [s

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company f

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the Rigas family. Two members of the Rigas family were convicted of securities fraud. A third was acquitted. Adelphia Communications Corporation (a company f

d States v. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 13, 16 United States v. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 11, 12 United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) 20 United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1984) 17 United States v. Rosenfield, 469 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1972)

ed States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) 8 21 10 8 United States v. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 13, 16 United States v. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 11, 12 United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) 20 United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.

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

se [Mr. Epstein] of the specific acts of which he is accused." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 237 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Davidoff 845 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d

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

ed States v. Persico, 645 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) 8 21 10 8 United States v. Reese, 933 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 13, 16 United States v. Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 11, 12 United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) 20 United States v. Rosado, 728 F.2d 89 (2d Cir.

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.