Epstein Secrets

[Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and b

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

[Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and b

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

e [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the trans rtation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States Ellis, 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and bu

8-39 (citing United States I. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States, Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States I Scisum, 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Governmen

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

[Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and b

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

[Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and b

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

[Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transportation of a female in interstate commerce was such immoral practices."); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991) (jury could consider that defendant's personal motive for bringing minor on interstate family vacations and b