Epstein Secrets

.. . it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment."' Cap/in & Drysdale, Chartered v. UnitedStates, 491 U.S. 617, 633 (1989) (citations omitted). 'The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair oppor

tation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that 'Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights ... [that] may not be vicariously asserted.'" United States v. Haqq, 278 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Rakers v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment right

nt may violate the Fifth Amendment (or another right). In certain circumstances, a private entity may be deemed to be acting as a government agent. See United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130, 146 (2d Cir. 2008) ("Actions of a private entity are attributable to the State if there is a sufficiently close nexus betwe

and suppress evidence by invoking their supervisory authority. Consistent with that principle, and given that this power is "sparingly exercised," Iambus, 897 F.3d at 401, (emphasis in original), this Court should not elect to do so here where the defendant has not established a violation of her Four

g, "the government bears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources." See United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63, 91 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 461-62 (1972) (holding that use and derivative use

tly would violate due process for the government to be allowed to use that evidence at all, for any purpose. U.S. CONST. amend. V; United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

arties before the bar .... [by] exclud[ing] evidence taken from the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Iambus, 897 F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the i

he deposition transcripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnani, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatement