Epstein Secrets

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441

tions omitted). " 4[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotingHerring v. Un ited States,555 U.S. 135, 141(2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that "[

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00077628 United States v. Sweig, 441

ations omitted). "`[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00039443 United States v. Sweig, 441

ations omitted). "`[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

rvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 156 United States v. Dumitru, 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 170 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 87 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 19 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d

States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 87, 93, 94 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 151, 152, 153 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 120, 127 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 115 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d C

ations omitted). "`[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

e amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence d

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00103021 United States v. Sweig, 441

tions omitted). " 4[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de