Epstein Secrets

d States v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225,233 United States v. Mantilla), 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Stipp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Nissen v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Mum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S.

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00100142 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00077807 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Biota, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00039622 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Biota, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 150, 154 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 192 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 122, 125 United States v

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 179 59 141 26, 29 104 84, 103 52 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 17 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 207, 210 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 108 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 99 Bochese v. Town

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen pages long and subst

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab

es v. Tram :::: ti, 513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233 United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v

1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.

ars where discovery and indictment was "sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge" and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 EFTA00103200 (denying bill of particulars request in stock fraud case where indictment was fifteen

decision theory, the comparative disparity theory, and the absolute disparity theory. See Biota, 97 F.3d at 655. Although no method is perfect, see Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 329 (2010), the Second Circuit has made clear that the comparative disparity theory is disfavored and strongly suggested that the ab