Epstein Secrets

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

spective government witness is biased or prejudiced against Ms. Maxwell or has a motive to falsify or distort his or her testimony. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987); United States v. Strifler, 851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988). 8. Contradictory Statements: We request all prior contradictory stat

may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady'. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, eg., Standing Discovery Order, United States. Enriquex, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing

3771(d)(3). Petitioners' attempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witnes