Epstein Secrets

ment cannot provide "mountains of documents to defense counsel" as a substitute for a bill of particulars where one would otherwise be required, see Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575, the provision of voluminous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for furthe

ent's proof to particulars furnished," it can "restrict unduly the Government's ability to present its case." Henry, 861 F. Supp. at 1197; see also Mitlof, 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (recognizing that "care must be taken" because "[t]he government's presentation of evidence at trial is limited to the part

vent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should [the defendant] be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The Indictment contains a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offenses charged, and it des

mation with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will charge the defendant with conspiring are routinely denied."); United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("What defendant seeks is in the nature of the `wheres, whens and with whoms' that [c]ourts have held to

vent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should [the defendant] be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The Indictment contains a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offenses charged, and it des

mation with respect to where, when, and with whom the Government will charge the defendant with conspiring are routinely denied."); United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("What defendant seeks is in the nature of the `wheres, whens and with whoms' that [c]ourts have held to