Epstein Secrets

Contrary to the defendant's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the would divulged to the Government. See, e.g.,United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer

nt's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer

nt's claims (Def. Mot. 11 at 10), she assumed the risk that the deposition transcripts would divulged to the Government. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) (declining to apply Carpenter where government obtained defendant's eBay transac

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer