Epstein Secrets

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen

d the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

d the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

d the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material

igible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pending

ourt and the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen

d the defense regarding its approach to obtaining and reviewing files, including other agency files, that may be relevant to this case. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated October 7, 2020, Dkt. No. 63). Consistent with that commitment, the Government has completed an initial review of its files for Brady material