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

re. After hearing argument from both parties, and reviewing all the materials that had been submitted, the court adopted the recommendation made by the SORA Board and found defendant to be a level-three sex offender. On appeal, defendant contends that he was incorrectly classified a level-three offender and

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

re. After hearing argument from both parties, and reviewing all the materials that had been submitted, the court adopted the recommendation made by the SORA Board and found defendant to be a level-three sex offender. On appeal, defendant contends that he was incorrectly classified a level-three offender and

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

re. After hearing argument from both parties, and reviewing all the materials that had been submitted, the court adopted the recommendation made by the SORA Board and found defendant to be a level-three sex offender. On appeal, defendant contends that he was incorrectly classified a level-three offender and