Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00100116 VII.
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00077781 VII.
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00039596 VII.
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00103174 VII.
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (252)
Entities connected to both Strohm and N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON46 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Chris Tucker
PERSON42 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON40 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Michael Jackson
PERSON38 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Colorado
LOCATION38 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Julie K. Brown
PERSON36 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
George Mitchell
PERSON36 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Michigan
LOCATION35 w/ Strohm·3 w/ N.Y.
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON36 w/ Strohm·2 w/ N.Y.
United States
LOCATION34 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION33 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
WE
Werner
PERSON32 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Oregon
LOCATION31 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Stephen Hawking
PERSON30 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON29 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Kentucky
LOCATION28 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Minnesota
LOCATION26 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON25 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
LY
Lynch
PERSON22 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.
the Southern District
LOCATION22 w/ Strohm·4 w/ N.Y.