Epstein Secrets

inous discovery in combination with some guidanceabout 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

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen

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

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

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

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

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

igible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pending

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

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen