Epstein Secrets

d count, it is contended that there was not sufficient evidence to show that Harms knowingly exercised the requisite persuasion or in- ducement of Bruno to travel in interstate commerce. It Is further contended that it was essential that the Government show that Harms either directed or knew that

h the understanding that she might return to Norfolk to resume her work there in January. On January 2 or 3, 1957, Harms made a telephone call to Bruno in Atlantic City, New Jersey, asking her to return to Norfolk and it was agreed that Bruno would come to Norfolk on January 7, 1957. On that date

ng the end of her circuit she plied her trade a day or two at Las Vegas, Nevada. There had been intermediate stops for her in brothels at Suisun, Sacramento and Barstow, under the aegis of Ege. It is around the necessary crossing of state lines by Cindy that the government found the required "commerce

2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 216 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 6 United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 7 United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ),

Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) 152 Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) 43 Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 122 Doe I v. Un

2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 216 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 6 United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 7 United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ),

Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) 152 Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) 43 Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 122 Doe 1 v. Un

2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 216 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 6 United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 7 United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ),

Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) 152 Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) 43 Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 122 Doe 1 v. Un

WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 144 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 5, 19 United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 5 United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 156 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ),

cham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) 37 Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 97, 98, 99 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 97 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) Doe No. 1. v. United Stat

2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 216 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 6 United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 7 United States v. Bunn, 154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237 United States v. Burke, No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ),

Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) 152 Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) 43 Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) 122 Doe 1 v. Un