Epstein Secrets

19, 20 United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 14, 16 United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 25 United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 15 White v. Helling, 194 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 1999)

ere arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York with (I) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin

ted States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988) 9 ii EFTA00104413 United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 7 United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 15 iii EFTA00104414 Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Omnibus Reply Memorandum in Support of her Supple

s opinion that the defendants did not have a Double Jeopardy claim because they "were never in jeopardy with respect to the dismissed counts of the Eastern District indictment." Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671. The court was clear that the defendants' only claim on appeal was that the Southern District indictment "viol

GS HA IN KN KS RA ZA ZB TOTAL 25 10 84 82 70 89 1 89 90 142 0 76 5 763 78018-054 Diaz KN RID REM 8:52 89 762 85896-054 Torres KN HID REM 8:52 88 761 86198-054 Perez GS HID REM 8:52 69 760 85976-054 Martinez KS Hosp 9:12 141 759 84831-054 Gupta ES Furl

Y: TITLE: U.S. Department of Justice United States Marshals Service Prisoner Remand or Order to Deliver and Receipt for United States Prisoners Eastern District of New York TO: MCC NEW YORK DATE: AUGUST 1,2019 (Name el 7)1k) THE FOLLOWING NAMED UNITED STATES PRISONER(S): 1 MARRERO;NORMAN 76539-067 2

nst him if this is 174 EFTA00100141 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avo id prejud icial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00100167 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau an

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00077806 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00077832 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau an

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00039621 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00039647 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau an

h the defendant committed the crime charged, or a preview of the Government's evidence or legal theories." Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569; see also Torres, 901 F.2d at 234 ("Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.' (quoting Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 4

a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale courthouse, were drawn from Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

ainst him if this is 174 EFTA00103199 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal q

a trial held at the Uniondale courthouse. 68 F.3d at 20. Under the relevant jury plan, jurors for trials held in Brooklyn were drawn from the entire Eastern District, while jurors for trials held in the "Long Island Division," which included the Uniondale 200 EFTA00103225 courthouse, were drawn from Nassau an