Epstein Secrets

4 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions. 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

(8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44

e, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martin

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaRam, 369 F.3d 153,156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's in

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

(8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

(8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netbum concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, but

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

uppression Motion Should Be Denied Maxwell seeks suppression of the evidence the Government obtained via a judicially authorized subpoena to under Martindell, the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, the Due Process clause, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous fa

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

(8th Cir. 1968) 268 Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123 Howell v. Superintendent Rockview Sc!, 939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44

overnment's arguments for exceptional circumstances and compelling need as relying on "the general desire for secrecy" and "unpersuasive" under the Martindell standard. (Id. at 6). Judge Netburn concluded that "the Government must demonstrate not that this investigation is an extraordinary circumstance, bu

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaP/am, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's