Epstein Secrets

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

20 announcement of the indictment and arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, sought and obtained an indictment of Ms. Maxwell through a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division. In doing so, the government procured Ms. Maxwell's indictment using a grand jury pool that excluded residents of the community in which Ms. Maxwel

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

20 announcement of the indictment and arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, sought and obtained an indictment of Ms. Maxwell through a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division. In doing so, the government procured Ms. Maxwell's indictment using a grand jury pool that excluded residents of the community in which Ms. Maxwel

4 United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 5, 7 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 5 United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 6 United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966 (D. Conn. 1992) 4 United States v. Reyes, 934 F. Supp. 553 (S.D.

20 announcement of the indictment and arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell, sought and obtained an indictment of Ms. Maxwell through a grand jury drawn from the White Plains Division. In doing so, the government procured Ms. Maxwell's indictment using a grand jury pool that excluded residents of the community in which Ms. Maxwel

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

ent has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in White Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the White Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

ent has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in White Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the White Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

ent has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in White Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the White Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

ent has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in White Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the White Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some

ant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the proposition that where a defendant is challenging the selection of th

ent has conceded that Ms. Maxwell's indictment was obtained using a grand jury seated in White Plains, apparently with jurors drawn exclusively from the White Plains Division.")). Her use of the term "division" is imprecise and attributes legal significance where there is none. Understanding how that is so requires some