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

on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to White Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. S

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

on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to White Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. S

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

on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to White Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. S

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

on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to White Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. S

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

on the criminal cover sheet that the case is to be assigned to White Plains if the crime was allegedly committed in whole or in predominant part in the Northern Counties." SDNY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. S