Epstein Secrets

ment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams , 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello v. United States , 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inade

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state prosecutors who are later interrogated by federal agents. In those cases, the courts

ment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams , 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello I United States , 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inadeq

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state prosecutors who are later interrogated by federal agents. In those cases, the courts

tment power is limited. See, e.g., Williams, 504 U.S. at 54-55 (Court cannot require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury); Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363-64 (1956) (Court cannot create rule permitting defendants to challenge grand jury indictments because of inadeq

to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law. Id. at 172-73 (quoting McNeil, 501 U.S. at 181). Two Courts of Appeals have addressed Cobb in the context of persons charged by state "In Cobb, the Court went on to decide that Texas police officers did not violate Cobb