Epstein Secrets

an Dershowitz, Esq. November 19, 2007 Page 14 interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").' Under these standards, the

, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States v. Ortega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11h Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillman 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v.Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); Uni

t be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement") (emphasis added)• Cleveland v, United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").2 Under these standards, there i

125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States v. Omega, 363 F.3d 1093 (1Is Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003). United States v Tillmog, 195 F.3d 640 (1l d' Cir. 1999)• USA States v.Panfil 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United

be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive." ).r Under these standards, the

, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx.104 (2005); United States v. Ortega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003); MnitedstagLy,namga 195 F.3d 640 (1 'Cir. 1999); United States v.Panfll 338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003); United Sta