Epstein Secrets

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer

d following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); SanvaH, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); Farmer, 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer

d following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); SanvaH, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); Farmer, 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United

answered the questions truthfully. A jury should be allowed to hear the questions in context to evaluate their materiality, which cannot be done at this stage.51 The Court therefore should deny the motion. In any event, the perjurious statements were material in both senses of the definition. First, the questions wer