Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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