Epstein Secrets

ess 194 2. The SDNY Jury Plan 195 B. Applicable Law 197 C. Discussion 198 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in White Plains 198 2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless 205 a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Repres

ates v. Bbrell, 470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) 183 EFTA00103009 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) 205, 219 United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 279 United States v. Block, No. 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) 267 United Stat

gblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76 Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 143 Bochese v. Town of Ponc

uption Epstein Parnas Avenatti Securities and Commodities Fraud Blaszczak Madoff Civil NYCHA Terrorism and International Narcotics Schulte White Plains Da Silva Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Mark Scott Matters of Interest Weinstein Public Corruption Epstein Epstein accusers and Harry Dunn's f

d in a 2018 insider trading trial have asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the appellate court's split decision in U.S. v. Blaszczak, which upheld the judgment against them. In a fiercely argued joint petition, lawyers for former hedge fund partners Theodore Huber and Robert Olan

iness 193 2. The SDNY Jury Plan 194 B. Applicable Law 197 C. Discussion 197 1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in White Plains 198 2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless 204 a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly Repr

States v. Birrell, 159 43, 45 470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) 122 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) 138, 146 United States v. Blaszczak, 308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 186 United States v. Block, 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) 174 United States v