Epstein Secrets

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

0 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 251, 253 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en bane) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Sup

d. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures ... such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

50 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 251, 253 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

50 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 251, 253 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

64 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 112 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 165, 166 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 106 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) 39 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.

the counts would waste judicial resources by requiring a second trial at 53 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

50 United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165 United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 251, 253 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Sup

d. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures ... such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

is warranted only where the Government's behavior "resulted in [] prejudice to the [defendant's] defense or legal representation." United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630, 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Absent a showing of prejudice, the appropriate remedy for conduct violating the test for outrageousness is