Epstein Secrets

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

suspendedgrand juries across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sitting in White Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a

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

suspended grand juries across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sifting in White Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a

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

suspended grand juries across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sifting in White Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a

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

es across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of 192 EFTA00095284 New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sitting in White Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a

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

suspended grand juries across the country, the Government sought and obtained an indictment from a grand jury of the Southern District of New York (the "Southern District" or "SDNY") sitting in White Plains. The defendant now challenges the pool from which that grand jury was drawn, alleging that it does not reflect a