Epstein Secrets

rator exception. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).16 Finally, and in any event, suppression is not a proper remedy. The defense relies principally on Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), in which the Supreme Court upheld an order 16 To be clear, the defendant's motion concerns the admission of statem

, and their admissibility litigated thereafter. See, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 273 n.8 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)); Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207. As much 59 EFTA00088861 as the defense might like the Government to create

17). The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522,524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate

roof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are dis

275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47

United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) 182, 184, 200, 222 United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) 284 United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) 48 United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 50

17). The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate

roof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are dis

275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47

United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) 182, 184, 200, 222 United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) 284 United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) 48 United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 50

17). The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate

roof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are dis

8, 81 Smith v. Maiyland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 83, 84 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 34 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 208 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 206, 208 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 40 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 35

189 United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 48 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) 122, 135, 148 United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) 191 United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) 35, 36 United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2

17). The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defe

roof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are dis

75 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47

United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70 United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) 182, 184, 200, 222 United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) 284 United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) 48 United States v. Ghailani, 751 F. Supp. 2d 50

17). The community population for purposes of assessing representativeness is the population eligible for jury service in the community. See, e.g., Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 524 (1975) (focusing on population eligible for jury service); Biota, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the appropriate

roof as to render a cautionary instruction of doubtful utility,' should declare a mistrial." (internal citations omitted) (quoting United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969))). Indeed, the Second Circuit has rejected the suggestion that non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements are dis