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

trial court." ha re 76 EFTA00100043 "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for instance, that a Rule 26(c) protect

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

it of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin iv EFTA00077610 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1993) Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., Page(s) 152 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

it of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin iv EFTA00039425 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1993) Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., Page(s) 152 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149 Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 40 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 35 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 35 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Alzmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 112 United States v. Ahmed, 10

2020 WL 3483702 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) 2021 WL 78235 (January 11, 2021) Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1993) Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 76, Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 179 59 141 26, 29 104 84, 103

t could have filed a writ of mandamus, since "mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation," United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. I

odification on these grounds, I address this factor in light of the current proceedings before the Second Circuit. The term is not well understood. See United States v. Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 501, 511 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (observing that the Circuit "provided no guidance as to what might constitute `impr

ay be overturned or modified [only] based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need." Andover Data Sem, a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080,1083 (2d Cir. 1989). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that Martindell applies to the Government

t could have filed a writ of mandamus, since "mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation," United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. I

odification on these grounds, I address this factor in light of the current proceedings before the Second Circuit. The term is not well understood. See United States v. Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 501, 511 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (observing that the Circuit "provided no guidance as to what might constitute `impr

be overturned or modified [only] based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need." Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080,1083 (2d Cir. 1989). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that Martindell applies to the Government

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 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights

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

trial court." In re 76 EFTA00077708 "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Sows., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for instance, that a Rule 26(c) protect

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 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights

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

trial court." In re 76 EFTA00039523 "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Sows., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for instance, that a Rule 26(c) protect

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 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights

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

discretion of the trial court." In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Only after 76 EFTA00095168 Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for inst

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 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978)). Accordingly, a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights

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

trial court." In re 76 EFTA00103101 "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); see also Andover Data Sows., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989) ("It is well-settled here and elsewhere, for instance, that a Rule 26(c) protect