Epstein Secrets

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

riginal). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "may" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); people v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratui