Epstein Secrets

enas issued by the 2 EFTA00076469 Case 1:15-cr-00317-KMW Document 323 Filed 05/17/18 Page 3 of 20 defense."). Only one decision—United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Scheindlin, J.), as amended (Feb. 20, 2008)—has suggested applying a different standard, and that standard has

omitted). Although the Nixon Court did not decide whether this four-part test applies to subpoenas served on third-parties in particular, courts in the Second Circuit have almost unanimously applied Nixon to subpoenas served on third-parties. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR- 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699

in that without the dossier that there would be no warrant." COUNTER-TERRORISM Suspected ISIS Member Brought To US For Prosecution. The AP (7/18, Tucker) reports the Administration has "brought home for prosecution a US national suspected of fighting alongside the Islamic State group in Syria." The P

mains at large." Judge Brodie "said `discovery needs to move forward' despite the complex nature of the case and set the next hearing for Aug. 20." Second Circuit Upholds Shkreli's Conviction. Reuters (7/18, Stempel) reports that a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday unanimously

ul and famous people that first propelled him into the public spotlight. In 2002, he flew former President Bill Clinton, actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker and others to South Africa on his private jet as part of a fact-finding AIDS mission in support of the Clinton Foundation. But Epstein, a Clinton do

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

. 15 Cr. 551 (AIN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the "more liberal standard" of United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena). The Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defen

discovery in the broadest terms." Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); see also United States v. Purin, 486 F.2d 1363, 1368 (2d Cir. 1973) ("A subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case is not intended as a means of discovery."). Unlike the rules of civil procedure— permitting the is

. 15 Cr. 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (applying Nixon, rather than the "more liberal standard" of United States v. Tucker, 249 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), to the propriety of a Rule 17(c) subpoena). The Nixon test is demanding. The defendant must establish that the defen