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

NY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhatta

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

NY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhatta

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

NY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhatta

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

NY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhatta

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

NY Business Division Rule 18(b)). Furthermore, the Rules specifically contemplate that cases may be reassigned from one courthouse to another. SDNY Business Division Rule 19. Consistent with these Rules, it is common for cases to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the White Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhatta