Epstein Secrets

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441

States v. Mantilla), 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Stipp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 204 United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

that are properly put to the jury and not a basis to dismiss the counts pretrial and without the benefit of a complete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627-28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the 122 EF

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00077628 United States v. Sweig, 441

States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 204 United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

that are properly put to the jury and not a basis to dismiss the counts pretrial and without the benefit of a complete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627-28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the 122 EF

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00039443 United States v. Sweig, 441

States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 204 United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

that are properly put to the jury and not a basis to dismiss the counts pretrial and without the benefit of a complete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627-28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the 122 EF

States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 87, 93, 94 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 151, 152, 153 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 120, 127 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 115 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d C

States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 192 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 122, 125 United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 138 United States v. Urena, 989 F. Supp. 2d 25

e amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence d

ts are properly put to the jury, and should not be subject to resolution on a motion to dismiss based on an incomplete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627- 28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the jury.")

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00103021 United States v. Sweig, 441

States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284 United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267 United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187 United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 204 United States v. Ulbricht, No. 14 Cr. 68 (

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

that are properly put to the jury and not a basis to dismiss the counts pretrial and without the benefit of a complete record. See United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 237 F. App'x 625, 627-28 (2d Cir. 2007) ("Generally, the meaning and truthfulness of a defendant's statement is a question of fact for the 122 EF