Back to Network
11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
Document Mentions (11 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus ordinarily must be "decided by the jury, not the court." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. For
207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (81)
Entities connected to both Scarlett Johansson and Lanfgraf
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON1,425 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
United States
LOCATION525 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
the Southern District
LOCATION340 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON310 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
FBI
ORGANIZATION291 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON234 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION211 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Alberto Gonzales
PERSON128 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION123 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
CO
Collins
PERSON106 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
TH
Thompson
PERSON86 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WA
Walker
PERSON76 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
WE
Werner
PERSON76 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Adriana Ross
PERSON63 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Hernandez
PERSON63 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Reid Weingarten
PERSON61 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
SC
Schneider
PERSON53 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Murray
PERSON52 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Brady
PERSON50 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf
Eric Holder
PERSON49 w/ Scarlett·11 w/ Lanfgraf