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

re the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occuned in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross

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

e the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occurred in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross

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

e the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occurred in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross

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

e the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occurred in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross

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

e the offense is alleged to have occurred and where the case will be tried." (Def. Mot. 9 at 2). Because the offense is alleged to have occurred in the "Manhattan Division" and the defendant assumes that her jury trial will occur there too, she argues that the "appropriate comparison," for the purpose of her fair cross