Epstein Secrets

d States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 182 United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 97 xi EFTA00095078 United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 42, 53, 58 United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042 (2d Cir. 1976) 121 United States v. Countentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th

iness 193 2. The SDNY Jury Plan 194 B. Applicable Law 197 C. Discussion 197 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in White Plains 198 2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless 204 a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Repr

1992) 252 United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 274 United States v. Corbett, 750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 137 United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 60, 77, 78, 85 United States v. Corr, 543 F.2d 1042 (2d Cir. 1976) 181 xii EFTA00103011 United States v. Counte

ess 194 2. The SDNY Jury Plan 195 B. Applicable Law 197 C. Discussion 198 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in White Plains 198 2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless 205 a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Repres

t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app

in United States v. Marion, the statute of limitations is 'the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges."' United States v. Cornielle, 16 EFTA00020276 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34 171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned

t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app

in United States v. Marion, the statute of limitations is 'the primary guarantee against bringing overly stale criminal charges."' United States v. Cornielle, 16 EFTA00022106 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 34 171 F.3d 748, 751 (2d Cir. 1999) (cleaned