Epstein Secrets

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. &ornate, et aL, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arid, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et aL, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No.

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

e.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Cromitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. N

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r

.g., United States v. Israel, 05 Cr. 1039 (CM), Dkt. No. 25; United States v. Crornitie, et at, 09 Cr. 558 (CM), Dkt. No. 183, 200; United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM), Dkt. No. 45; United States v. Arici, 12 Cr. 24 (LAP), Dkt. No. 115, 117; United States v. Reeves, et at, 16 Cr. 372 (VEC), Dkt. No

y drawn from the "Long Island Division." Yet the Second Circuit rejected the defendant's claimed entitlement to a jury drawn from Kings, Queens and Richmond counties, or the entire Eastern District, because that argument—like the defendant's here—was based on a flawed premise. The defendant's proposed r