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

1) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300 Taylor v.

t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app

ime-barred prosecution violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the propo

t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app

ime-barred prosecution violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the propo

t the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule. • Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the Si superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion app

ime-barred prosecution violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the propo