Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nce and to bring to the Court's attention any issues that require resolution before trial. "This is all that Rule 404(b) requires." United States v. Thompson, No. 13-cr-378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013). The Court concludes this schedule is generally reasonable, although additional
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both Thompson and Lanfgraf
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON193 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
United States
LOCATION91 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON86 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON82 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON80 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION60 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
CO
Collins
PERSON57 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
FBI
ORGANIZATION55 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
the Southern District
LOCATION50 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Hernandez
PERSON40 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WA
Walker
PERSON40 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WE
Werner
PERSON39 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Murray
PERSON33 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SC
Schneider
PERSON33 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION32 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Reid Weingarten
PERSON31 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Alberto Gonzales
PERSON30 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
TR
Tracy
PERSON30 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Adriana Ross
PERSON27 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SA
Santobello
PERSON27 w/ Thompson·11 w/ Lanfgraf