Epstein Secrets

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

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

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

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 1. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

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

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. &ornate, et aL, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arid, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et aL, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No.

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

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

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

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

) 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

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), ard, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the "

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

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. N

. 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

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement