Epstein Secrets

st an offender before a legal tribunal, and pursuing them to final judgment on behalf of the state or government, as by indictment or information." Webster :r New International, supra, at 1987. Moreover, the law is clear, at least for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" doe

e United States in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has l

der before a legal tribunal, and pursuing them to final judgment on behalf of the state or govemment, as by indictment or information." Prosecution, Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1944). Moreover, the law is clear, at least for Sixth Amendment right-to- counsel purposes, that a "prosecuti

c prosecutions, until they come before the court to which they are returnable, are within the exclusive direction of the district attorney ....'); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) r[T]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ..

e attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions." 819 F2d at 1312 (internal quotation omitted); see also taRoucht v. Webster, 666 F$upp. 415, 417 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (holding that the separa- tion of powers prevents courts from interfer- ing in federal criminal investigations e

e faced this issue have held that language-based classi- fications are not the equivalent of national origin classifications. See Soberal-Peres v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41 (2d Cir.1983), art. denied, — U.S —, 104 S.Ct. 1713, 80 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984); Frontera v Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1