Epstein Secrets

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) 236 United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 183, 221, 222 United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) 254 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) 236 United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 183, 221, 222 United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) 254 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

el, 19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) 155 United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 122, 148 United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) 166 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 114 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's