Epstein Secrets

75 Smith y. 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 T

ed States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dee. 14, 2010) 282 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010

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

ted States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) 282 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010

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

ted States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) 282 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010

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

. ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.14, 2010) ("The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Giglio

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

. ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) ("The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Gigli

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

. ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."); United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) ("The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Gigli

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

nited States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 105 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 37, 38, 39, 40 United States v. Seabrook, 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) 190 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. 2010) 27, 38 U

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

. ten days before trial. There is no need to depart from the customary rule in this district of disclosure shortly before trial."); United States v. Seabrook, 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) ("The Government represents to the Court that it is aware of its Brady, Giglio, J

"First Amendment interests [are] either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief us] sought." Joint Appendix 66 (quoting Wagner us Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 576 n. 76 (D.C.Cir.1987)) (alteration in original). But Miranda himself alleges only that any infringement of his First Amendme

a. 12. 86 LEd.2d 411 (198.5): Saldana v. Can, 684 F.2d 1159, 1163 (5111 CIr.1982), an. derde4 460 US. 1012, 103 S.Ct. 1253, 75 LEd.2d 481 (1983). Seabrook, Texas," "[a] judge's determina- tion of probable cause breaks the chain of causation and insulates the initiating party from liability."" Dr. Burz

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

ed States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) 282 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010