Epstein Secrets

mitted.' United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017)(emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, Ill (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal pr

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

mitted.' United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal pr

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

mitted.' United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal pr

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

ommitted.'" United States v. Wey, 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting Untied States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, III (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal pr

e amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence d

tted.'" United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan, 18, 2017) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). "When the charges in an indictment have stated the elements of the offense and provided even minimal pr

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Chuang, 183 271 68, 81 897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) 115, 116 United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 228 United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 201 1 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) 153, 160, 163 U

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441

. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Chuang, 183 271 68, 81 897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) 115, 116 United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 228 United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) 153, 160, 163 Un

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00077628 United States v. Sweig, 441

. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Chuang, 183 271 68, 81 897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) 115, 116 United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 228 United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) 153, 160, 163 Un

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00039443 United States v. Sweig, 441

65 United States v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2018) 86, 88, 93 United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 12 Untied States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 151 Untied States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 150 Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626 (6th

States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 87, 93, 94 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 151, 152, 153 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 120, 127 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 115 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d C

. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977) United States v. Chuang, 183 271 68, 81 897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) 115, 116 United States v. Coffey, 361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 228 United States v. Coke, No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) 153, 160, 163 Un

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00103021 United States v. Sweig, 441