Epstein Secrets

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00100086 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287,307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude,

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

akes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,718 (2d Cir. 2000). To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alleg

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00077751 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

akes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alle

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00039566 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

akes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alle

jury is best equipped to determine the meaning that a defendant 119 EFTA00095211 assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).48 An exception arises when language in a question is "fundamentally ambiguous," that is "when it is not a phrase

o prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, 139 EFTA00095231 "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

akes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alle

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00103144 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

akes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was "necessary to the [issuing] judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000). To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alle

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cr. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cr. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir.

) 165 xi EFTA00099952 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

) 165 xi EFTA00077617 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

) 165 xi EFTA00039432 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

A00095086 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 104 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 163, 164 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 140 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 135, 136 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1992) 112 United States v. Campo Flores, 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 189, 190 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 113 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 190 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

5, 6, 245 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249 United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir

) 165 xi EFTA00103010 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (