Epstein Secrets

ALFELD,STANLEY F DONAHUE,J BARRY ROGERS,HEATHER T RUSSO,CAROL BOARDMAN,D DI

INVESTMENTS INC STRYKER,JON BRODSKY,DAVID GOTTFRIED,ROBERT W TOWN OF PALM BEA

AH P KAHLE,KENT HOUSE,NADINE BRIGGS,NANCY E SCHNALL,M ELLIOT SCHOLL,ADE

w Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to

" Dr. Burzynski counters by correctly pointing out that the Supreme Court rejected the rationale underlying that broadly-stated rule in Malley v. Briggs." In Malley, the Court held that an officer may not rely on the judgment of a judicial officer in finding that probable cause exists if "a reason

er 4th until approximately one month later, Stevens was contacted directly by Defendant James Neill's counsel, Martha Rogers, on November 3, 1993. Rogers demanded the return of the materials in James Neill's briefcase. She testified that she was advised by Stevens that such materials would be return

e United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130, 137 (D.C.Cir.1986). While there is a presumption that the information is conveyed to the prosecution team, Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486, 495 (D.C.Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, 712 F.2d 1444, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040, 104 S.Ct. 704, 79 L.Ed.2d 169