Epstein Secrets

th prosecution by one sovereign do not carry over to prosecution by another sovereign. In Cobb , the Supreme Court clarified its holding in McNeil. Wisconsin , 501 U.S. 171 (1991) that the "Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense specific. It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions." Id. a

the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

ted to Iowa law enforcement authorities that Peck, a twenty- four-year-old man, was involved in trafficking con- trolled substances from Illinois to Wisconsin and Iowa. S.L. also reported that Peck had a laptop computer containing pornographic images of her and another minor girl and that Peck had engage

its position clear that no reduction was warranted, adding that it could not present "a more vigorous argument" because of the plea agreement. Id. The First Circuit held that although the Government did not formally oppose the reduc- tion, it effectively opposed it in the memorandum. Id. Clark has no bearing on

The Seventh Circuit also noted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had reached a contrary conclusion, relying on state law grounds. Jd. at 946 n.5. The Wisconsin decisions do not offer a principled reason for extending Ritchie to private records and should not be regarded as persuasive authority here. See Stat

95-98 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Walker, 447 F.3d 999, 1006-07 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Egenberger, 424 F.3d 803, 805 (Sth Cir. 2005). The First Circuit has held only that the failure to provide notice does not constitute plain error. See United States v. Mateo, No. 06-1805, 2006 WL 1195676, at 1 (1st