Back to Network
3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
6 / 3
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ood that the SORA hearing would be a non-adversarial proceeding with no opportunity or need to present evidence. For the People now to suggest that Appellant erred "as a tactical matter" in trusting the prosecutor's word, and moreover, should be procedurally barred from challenging the lower court's lega
ting and lurid detail — the very Probable Cause Affidavit that the People themselves expressly repudiated as unreliable for purposes of calculating Appellant's risk level under SORA and that was rejected by the Florida prosecutors who handled Appellant's criminal case. Whether this complete abandonment
claim that is belied by the record? — the hearing court should not have scored Appellant for the majority of allegations which formed the basis of the Level 3 Order. See Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary at 5, ¶ 7 (2006). Accordingly, the Order 6 By previewi
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ood that the SORA hearing would be a non-adversarial proceeding with no opportunity or need to present evidence. For the People now to suggest that Appellant erred "as a tactical matter" in trusting the prosecutor's word, and moreover, should be procedurally barred from challenging the Court's legally in
a prosecutors who handled Appellant's criminal case and which the People themselves expressly repudiated as unreliable for purposes of calculating Appellant's risk level under SORA. Whether this complete abandonment of the People's previous position and sudden defense of the hearing court's unsupportabl
laimed by the People on the records -- the hearing court should not have scored Appellant for the majority of allegations which formed the basis of the Level 3 Order. See Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary at 5, ¶ 7 (2006). B. The People's Attempt to Introduce
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ood that the SORA hearing would be a non-adversarial proceeding with no opportunity or need to present evidence. For the People now to suggest that Appellant erred "as a tactical matter" in trusting the prosecutor's word, and moreover, should be procedurally barred from challenging the Court's legally in
a prosecutors who handled Appellant's criminal case and which the People themselves expressly repudiated as unreliable for purposes of calculating Appellant's risk level under SORA. Whether this complete abandonment of the People's previous position and sudden defense of the hearing court's unsupportabl
claim that is belied by the records -- the hearing court should not have scored Appellant for the majority of allegations which formed the basis of the Level 3 Order. See Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary at 5, ¶ 7 (2006). Accordingly, the Order adjudging App
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (45)
Entities connected to both Appellant and the Level 3 Order
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON34 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON20 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
New York
LOCATION15 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Julie K. Brown
PERSON10 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON9 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
New York City
LOCATION9 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Jay Lefkowitz
PERSON9 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Samantha Power
PERSON8 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
MW
M. Weinberg
PERSON7 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Ruth Pickholz
PERSON7 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Criminal Term
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
TY
Typeface
PERSON6 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
DIGITAL-SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
SM
Sandra Lynn Musumeci
PERSON6 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Felony Solicitation for Prostitution
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Appellant·2 w/ the
Pataki
PERSON6 w/ Appellant·2 w/ the
Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V.
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Appellant·2 w/ the
the Appellate Court
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
PM
People v. Mingo
PERSON3 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the
Kilcer
LOCATION3 w/ Appellant·3 w/ the