Epstein Secrets

nous discovery in combination with some guidance about what is most relevant can vitiate a need for further particulars, see, e.g., United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying request for particularization of alleged misrepresentations where the indictment was thirty-four

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

n omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (same); United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same). "Acquisition of evidentiary details is not the function of the bill of particulars." United States

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

n omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (same); United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same). "Acquisition of evidentiary details is not the function of the bill of particulars." United States

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