Epstein Secrets

as "'an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the 176 EFTA00077808 evidentiary details of its case' (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose "the manner in which it

r was not focused on the construction of the qualified wheel, different "relevant jury pools" have been used by the Second Circuit. Most notably, in Biaggi, the main thrust of the defendant's fair cross-section claim was that reliance on voter registration lists systemically excluded African-Americans

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt

as "'an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the 176 EFTA00039623 evidentiary details of its case' (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose "the manner in which it

r was not focused on the construction of the qualified wheel, different "relevant jury pools" have been used by the Second Circuit. Most notably, in Biaggi, the main thrust of the defendant's fair cross-section claim was that reliance on voter registration lists systemically excluded African-Americans

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt

r was not focused on the construction of the qualified wheel, different "relevant jury pools" have been used by the Second Circuit. Most notably, in Biaggi, the main thrust of the defendant's fair cross-section claim was that reliance on voter registration lists systemically excluded African-Americans

particulars request as "'an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the evidentiary details of its case" (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose "the manner in which it

o. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dk

as "'an impermissible attempt to compel the Government to provide the 176 EFTA00103201 evidentiary details of its case' (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose "the manner in which it

r was not focused on the construction of the qualified wheel, different "relevant jury pools" have been used by the Second Circuit. Most notably, in Biaggi, the main thrust of the defendant's fair cross-section claim was that reliance on voter registration lists systemically excluded African-Americans

. 25; United States v. Crornitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No. 51; United States v. Guerrier, 18 Cr. 284 (JSR), Dkt

United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) 41 United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 248, 250 United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) 268 United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) 298, 300 United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d

771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) 5, 7, 8 United States v. Annahi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), alrd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 5 United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP) 286 United States v. Arzherger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 151 United States v. Ash, 464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y.