Epstein Secrets

k, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April I, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, By Serene K. Nakano, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, New York, for the United States. Wachtel & Masyr, LLP, By Steven J. Cohen

(noting that cases where the formulation of a "special federal rule" are "few and restricted"); Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 98, Ill S.Ct. 1711, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) (noting that a federal court "should endeavor to fill the interstices of federal remedial schemes with uniform federal

higan for alleged- t mailing circulars in violation of the o.ne Mail Statute, and who had been arrested on the indictments at their resi- dences in the Southern District of Cali forma where proceedings for their re- moval were instituted before the United States Commissioner, brought suits in equity in the United St

mindful of the fact that a district court 'retains great latitude in deciding wl illy • should be asked on voir dire.' Mu'Min 500 U.S. 415, 424, Ill S.Ct. 1899, 114 . . 493 (1991). We ascertain only whether the district court ensured that Middleton had 'a fair r trial by a el of impartial, "indiff

334014235 (560820-8711 APPEARANCE NOTICE The attached subpoena requires the production of the records specified to a Federal Grand Jury/Trial in the Southern District of Florida. A new provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that routine business records may be admitted at trial through the declaratio

federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 'A grand jury investigation 'is