Epstein Secrets

isregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—e

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00040678 deliberatel

isregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—e

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00106053 Case 1:20-c

isregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—e

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00066524 deliberatel

isregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—e

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00087265 deliberatel

isregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—e

ority. Maxwell must thus make a substantial preliminary showing on each of Franks' requirements to justify an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 113 (2d Cir. 1998). That is, she must first make a substantial preliminary showing that the Government 15 EFTA00087244 deliberatel

) 165 xi EFTA00077617 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

) 165 xi EFTA00039432 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1992) 112 United States v. Campo Flores, 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 189, 190 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 113 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 190 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively

) 165 xi EFTA00103010 United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282 United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167 United States v. Canter, 338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283 United States v. Carbonaro, No. 02 Cr. 743 (

e district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.")); United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively