Legal Opinion
United States v. Finnerty
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 27, 2006No. 05CR393(DC), 05CR397(DC)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CHIN, District Judge.
Defendants David Finnerty and Thomas J. Murphy, Jr., move for an order compelling discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Facts
The facts, as alleged in the Indictments, 05 Cr. 393 and 05 Cr. 397, are as follows:
Finnerty and Murphy were employed by Fleet Specialist, Inc., as New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) specialists from about 1996 and 1993, respectively, and during all times relevant to the Indictments. (Finnerty Indict. ¶ 2;…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Susan A. Desiderio v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Carmine AvellinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- United States v. David StevensCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Richard Santiago, A/K/A "Chuco"Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Ubaldo Trevino and Ramiro GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. SteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- United States v. FergusonDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Andrew L. Weems v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2018
- United States v. GhailaniDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- United States v. UrenaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.