Epstein Secrets

d actual 2 prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that 3 were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were made 4 to Crescenz. 5 And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. 6 Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective 7 reasonableness by the of

ly, your Honor, I think you can 10 just see from the upset there what's going to be happening at 11 this trial. This is the direct quote from Mr. Pagliuca. 12 "Fantastical conspiracy". That's going to be the argument from 13 the other side. They're obviously entitled to advance that 14 argument. B

d actual 2 prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that 3 were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were made 4 to Crescenz. 5 And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. 6 Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective 7 reasonableness by the of

ly, your Honor, I think you can 10 just see from the upset there what's going to be happening at 11 this trial. This is the direct quote from Mr. Pagliuca. 12 "Fantastical conspiracy". That's going to be the argument from 13 the other side. They're obviously entitled to advance that 14 argument. B

efendant had actual prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were mad to Crescenz. And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective reasonableness by the officers who

: In reply, your Honor, I think you can just see from the upset there what's going to be happening at this trial. This is the direct quote from Mr. Pagliuca. "Fantastical conspiracy". That's going to be the argument from the other side. They're obviously entitled to advance that argument. But that's wh