The following excerpt is from United States v. Vinas, 910 F.3d 52 (2nd Cir. 2018):
In my view, respectfully, the majority mis-analogizes this case to United States v. McElroy , 697 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1982). Whereas in McElroy the Rule 16 violation was blatant and the disclosure inaccurate, in the case before us reasonable minds can clearly disagree as to whether there was a Rule 16 violation. While I find all three of us to be possessed of reasonable minds, I am on the other side of the proverbial fence from the majority.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.