Epstein Secrets

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

tuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of publicity. Neb. Press Ass 'n, 427 U.S. at 563-64 (enumerating methods to mitigate the effect of pre- trial publicity including: "change of [a trial] venue," "postponement of the

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

tuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of publicity. Neb. Press Ass 'n, 427 U.S. at 563-64 (enumerating methods to mitigate the effect of pre- trial publicity including: "change of [a trial] venue," "postponement of the

0/21 Page 9 of 15 criminal case to an unfair trial." United States v. Martoma, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182959, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2013) (citing Neb. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of

tuart, 427 U.S. 539, 565 (1976)). Nor is withholding the records the only measure that courts can use to mitigate the adverse effects of publicity. Neb. Press Ass 'n, 427 U.S. at 563-64 (enumerating methods to mitigate the effect of pre- trial publicity including: "change of [a trial] venue," "postponement of the