Epstein Secrets

0-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 27 passim Cases Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Color of Change v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 Dept of Interior

r. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

AGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 34 demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It found that the time required for

that the requested evidence is material." Rigas, 258 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (internal citation omitted). As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Armstrong, while Rule 16 authorizes 10 EFTA00027321 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 34 defendants to exami

USION 29 EFTA00031264 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 27 passim Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Color of Change v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 Dep't of Interior

. 2020) 26 Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) 13 United States v. Alamelz, 341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 29, 30, 31 United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, (1996) passim United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 19, 25 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 7 Unite

uld be disclosed when defendants make a 7 EFTA00031274 --- PAGE BREAK --- demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It found that the time required for

t sympathy, compassion, or compromise from the jury. The records Thomas seeks are no more discoverable than the nullification evidence precluded in Armstrong and its progeny. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462- 63 (defendant not entitled to discovery on race of other narcotics defendants to aid in selective p

de v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52-58 (1991) (defining "prompt" under Gerstein's requirement of a prompt judicial determination of probable cause). 6 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963) (holding prosecution's withholding of the confession of defendant's confederate violated defendant's due process

97 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (holding that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause). ° United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456-71 (1996) (examining selective prosecution claim based on racial bias); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)

16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (2) the constitutional guarantee of due process as expressed by the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Motion at 1. I. Legal Standards A. Rule 16 Rule 16 requires t

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (2) the constitutional guarantee of due process as expressed by the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Motion at 1. I. Legal Standards A. Rule 16 Rule 16 requires t

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (2) the constitutional guarantee of due process as expressed by the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Motion at 1. I. Legal Standards A. Rule 16 Rule 16 requires t

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady' Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would p

g principle that It]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large pan to the separation of powers doctrine — prosecutors are delegates of the President, helping him

lso United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002) (quoting Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (St

lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,

disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control

16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (2) the constitutional guarantee of due process as expressed by the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Motion at 1. I. Legal Standards A. Rule 16 Rule 16 requires t

selective prosecution defense, he has not met the "rigorous" standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). "[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory ef