Epstein Secrets

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

irectly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. The defendant cites Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the Franks standard to obtain a hearing. "W

determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous," and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCouny, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same of

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous," and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCouny, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same of

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

determining whether an indictment is in fact multiplicitous," and the record cannot be fully established until trial is complete. United States v. McCouny, 562 F.3d 458, 469 (2d Cir. 2009). Additionally, because double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same of