Epstein Secrets

01 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ("`[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' 179 EFTA00100146 Particulars are nec

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen

01 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ("c[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' 179 EFTA00077811 Particulars are nec

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

01 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ("c[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' 179 EFTA00039626 Particulars are nec

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

01 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) (m[E]videntiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' Particulars are necessary only where ind

igible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pending

01 F.2d at 234). Thus, the Indictment itself provides a sufficient basis to deny the defendant's motion in its entirety. See, e.g., United States v. Bonventre, 646 F App'x 73, 79 (2d Cir. 2016) ("1E]videntiaty detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' 179 EFTA00103204 Particulars are nece

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen