Epstein Secrets

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00099957 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 3

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unit

er necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government's continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative de

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00077622 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00039437 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

, 114 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 4, 6 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 53 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) 42, 53 United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) 26, 29, 34 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 89

8) 105 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 174, 176, 177 United S

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 53 EFTA00095145 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00103015 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

trial to impeach the witnesses' credibility as to particular aspects of their testimony. This falls short of substantial prejudice. United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982) (no prejudice where absent witness's testimony was "at best corroborative on minor points"). Specifically, the h

t have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 785-86, 788-90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pit-indictment delay where a material defense witness had died); United States v. Sny