Epstein Secrets

. 1985) 22 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK),

n another district, which the court held irrelevant; they cited no "affirmative appearance" in support of their position, as Ms. Maxwell has. And in Russo, the court found it unnecessary to reach Annabi, but acknowledged that an "affirmative appearance" of an intent to bind other USAOs can be found ev

Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984) 16 United States v. Clements, 992 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1993) 15 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 21 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 17 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d

. 1985) 22 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK),

n another district, which the court held irrelevant; they cited no "affirmative appearance" in support of their position, as Ms. Maxwell has. And in Russo, the court found it unnecessary to reach Annabi, but acknowledged that an "affirmative appearance" of an intent to bind other USAOs can be found ev

Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1984) 16 United States v. Clements, 992 F.2d 417 (2d Cir. 1993) 15 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 21 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 17 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d

ed States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 214 United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) 207, 213, 214, 217 United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 274, 282 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 5, 11 United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 17

cts Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant's motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it

r. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

ed States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 214 United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) 207, 213, 214, 217 United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 274, 282 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 5, 11 United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 17

cts Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant's motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it

r. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

ed States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 143 United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) 139, 142, 143, 145 United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 182, 190 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 4, 9 United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170

cts Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant's motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it

) 40, 41 United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2019) 106 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 52 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 176 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) 78, 81, 103 United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr

ed States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 214 United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) 207, 213, 214, 217 United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 274, 282 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 5, 11 United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 17

cts Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant's motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it

. 2019) 154 United States v. Cromitie, et al., 09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286 United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75 United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268 United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585

he] defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding [the] case,' the request for a witness list should be denied." United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Bejasa, 904 F.2d at 139-40). "Courts in the Second Circuit typically deny motions for the early

Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particulars is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the

he] defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding [the] case,' the request for a witness list should be denied." United States v. Russo, 483 F. Supp. 2d 301, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Bejasa, 904 F.2d at 139-40). "Courts in the Second Circuit typically deny motions for the early

Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Tomes, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("A bill of particulars is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the