Epstein Secrets

d Relief. 16 CONCLUSION 17 i EFTA00104412 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873) 11 Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) II, 12, 13 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)

a agreement explicitly stated that "the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico"); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (plea agreement explicitly stated "[t]his agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the East

ed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense." Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977); see also Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 48 (2d Cir. 2001). An indictment is multiplicitous, and therefore implicates double jeopardy, "when it charges a single offense as an

a single conspiracy can contain multiple objectives, particularly if the objectives share important similarities, as they do here. United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 148 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. 4/Irani, 968 F.2d 1512, 1518 (2d Cir. 1992)). Overlap of participants. The participants i

lez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language

jeopardy when the jury in their case is empaneled or upon the defendant's entry of a guilty plea. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001). Until then, a defendant has not been put in jeopardy and the Government is free to commence a prosecution. Maxwel