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

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

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Biyan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out

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

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

oyees who have at other times also allegedly falsified records. The cases Thomas cites do not support a contrary result. In United States v. Bryan, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the government could not limit its discovery obligations to documents located in the district of prosecution since the case came out

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

ght of the conference report on Rule 16, compelling 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 And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA.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