Epstein Secrets

recognizes and has complied with its disclosure obligations under Brady,' defendants' request for immediate or otherwise early production of Brady materials is denied." (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y.1996))); Gallo,I999 WL 9848, at *8

e counsel of this single line 66 Notably. the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00100167 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

itness "M." of this single line " Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00077832 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

itness "M." of this single line " Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00039647 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

bligation to obtain the personal papers of a third party, see United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Government's `Brady obligations extend only to materials within prosecutors' possession, custody or control or, in appropriate cases, that of the Department of Justice

tentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. 188 EFTA00095280 The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selecting the jury from t

that is likely to be the case, it is not necessarily so. Bahia again illustrates the point, as a case originally tried in Brooklyn was reassigned to Uniondale for the retrial "to accommodate trial congestion in the court's calendar during a period of judicial emergency . . . ." United States v. Soares, 66

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

fense counsel of this single line Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00103225 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury