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

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 and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

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

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 and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

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

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 and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury

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

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. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selecting the jury from t

that is likely to be the case, it is not necessarily so. Bahia again illustrates the point, as a case originally tried in Brooklyn was reassigned to Uniondale for the retrial "to accommodate trial congestion in the court's calendar during a period of judicial emergency . . . ." United States v. Soares, 66

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

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 and Suffolk Counties. Id. at 24. The defendant argued that the district court erred by selec

nvolve conduct that occurred in Brooklyn, appears to have been indicted in Brooklyn, was originally tried in Brooklyn, and was later transferred to Uniondale, where it was tried with a jury drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury