Epstein Secrets

Particulars Is Not Warranted 174 1. Applicable Law 174 2. Discussion 178 B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied 182 1. Applicable Law 182 2. Discussion 184 C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

Particulars Is Not Warranted 174 1. Applicable Law 174 2. Discussion 178 B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied 182 1. Applicable Law 182 2. Discussion 184 C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

Particulars Is Not Warranted 173 1. Applicable Law 174 2. Discussion 177 A. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied 182 1. Applicable Law 182 2. Discussion 183 A. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

rticulars Is Not Warranted 174 1. Applicable Law 174 2. Discussion 178 B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material Should Be Denied 182 1. Applicable Law 182 2. Discussion 184 C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en