Epstein Secrets

t in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier "plea agreement" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The Second Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the p

d, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1084 (1991) 15 United States v. Mozer, 828 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 12 iii EFTA00065992 United States v. Papa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1975) 29 United States v. Persico, 620 F

t in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier "plea agreement" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The Second Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that "[I] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the p

d, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1084 (1991) 15 United States v. Mozer, 828 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 12 iii EFTA00099355 United States v. Papa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1975) 29 United States v. Persico, 620 F

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid

ntracts in the civil and criminal contexts often focus on the "meticulous standards [which must be] ... met by the prosecutors ...," U.S. v. Mozer, 828 F.Supp. 208, 215-216 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (citations omitted), the differences apply to the defendants as well. The very purpose of a cooperation a