Epstein Secrets

Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indic

. amend. V. "This protection applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense." United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). "A defendant may only raise a Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (i.e. jeopardy has `attached') sometim

ierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). The sex trafficking charges are theref

, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes multiple prosecutions only if the subsequent charge has the "same elements" as the first. See United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993) (affirming Blockburger's same-elements test as the sole basis for double jeopardy claims). Unlike the firearm offenses that

onvincing Congress to expand their discretion at the expense of judges' sentencing authority, see United States v. Kupa, 976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (describing the legislative history and Justice Department lobbying related to federal drug statutes, notably 27 U.S.C. § 841 (2012)). 218 See

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) has been a party to lawsuits in the South- ern District of New York, both as a plain- tiff and defendant.

ction or under the control’ or ‘at the request of or on behalf of the out-of-state defendant.” Chrysler Capital Corp. 778 F.Supp. at 1268-69 (quoting Dixon v. Mack, 507 F.Supp. 345, 350 (S.D.N.Y.1980)). “Whether an alleged conspiracy ... ex- isted is ‘a mixed question of law and fact.’” Daventree, 349 F