Epstein Secrets

43, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd, F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) United States v. Spears, 206 63, 78 295 159 F.3d 108

ries insufficient; "no one suggests that every delay- caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unit

er necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government's continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative de

243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), affd, F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) United States v. Spears, 206 63, 78 295 159 F.3d 108

ries insufficient; "no one suggests that every delay- caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), affd, F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) United States v. Spears, 206 63, 78 295 159 F.3d 108

ries insufficient; "no one suggests that every delay- caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007) United States v. Snyder, 159, 160, 167 162 139 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) 44, 53 United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 203 United States v.

ries insufficient; "no one suggests that every delay- caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461

8) 105 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 174, 176, 177 United S

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 53 EFTA00095145 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the

243, 247 United States v. Smith, No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), affd, F. App'x 636 (2d Cir. 2009) United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Soares, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) United States v. Spears, 206 63, 78 295 159 F.3d 108

ries insufficient; "no one suggests that every delay- caused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution"); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice); United States v. lannelli, 461

) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

sco, 431 U.S. 783, 785-86, 788-90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pit-indictment delay where a material defense witness had died); United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (two 41 EFTA00156440 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 42 of 45 defense witnesses died t

t have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 785-86, 788-90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pit-indictment delay where a material defense witness had died); United States v. Sny