Epstein Secrets

idence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped

an v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Mr v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141 Palmieri v. State of N.1'., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 11

idence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped

n v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141 Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115

idence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped

n v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141 Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115

idence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped

wan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 40 Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 93, 94 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 169 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 97, 98 Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 77, 80, 81 Peck v. United States, 73 F.3d 1220 (2d Cir. 199

idence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped

n v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259 Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141 Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115