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 "

Contrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the would divulged to the Government. See, e.g.,United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

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 "

nt's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

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 "

nt's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

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 "

Contrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

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 "

nt's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

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.

67,68,71 United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) 69 United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) passim United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00099962 United States v. Schalk-id-, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 1

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

67, 68, 71 United States v. Scaipa, 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) 69 United States v. Scaipa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) passim United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17. 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00077627 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182

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

67, 68, 71 United States v. Scaipa, 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) 69 United States v. Scaipa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) passim United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17. 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00039442 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182

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

nited States v. Scaipa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) 159, 160, 162, 164 United States v. Scaipa, 913 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) 42 United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 86 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 121 United States v. Sch

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

, 68, 71 United States v. Scam pa, 897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) 69 United States v. Scam pa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) passim United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00103020 United States v. Schafrick, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 18