Epstein Secrets

d with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendan

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen

d with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendan

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

d with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendan

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pend

d with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendan

igible for jury service); Rioux, 97 F.3d at 657 ("We conclude that the 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aft"), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pending

d with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendan

ed. (Def. Mot. 9 at 6). As set forth above, she is wrong. The relevant 69 The defense motion references the expert report of an expert witness named Jeffrey O'Neal Martin ("Martin Aff."), which was prepared for the defense in United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF), where a similar motion is currently pen