Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
se at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required `only where the charges of the indictment are
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
se at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required 'only where the charges of the indictment are
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
se at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required 'only where the charges of the indictment are
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
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
se at trial." United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, "[a] bill of particulars is required `only where the charges of the indictment are
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (133)
Entities connected to both Richmond and Cir.2010
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON158 w/ Richmond·8 w/ Cir.2010
LB
Leon Black
PERSON87 w/ Richmond·5 w/ Cir.2010
United States
LOCATION68 w/ Richmond·8 w/ Cir.2010
Julie K. Brown
PERSON69 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
Prince Charles
PERSON62 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON57 w/ Richmond·6 w/ Cir.2010
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON57 w/ Richmond·5 w/ Cir.2010
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON51 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION46 w/ Richmond·3 w/ Cir.2010
Barneys New York
ORGANIZATION42 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
Indianapolis
LOCATION40 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
John F. Kennedy
PERSON35 w/ Richmond·6 w/ Cir.2010
Wilbur Ross
PERSON37 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON36 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
Michael Cohen
PERSON36 w/ Richmond·2 w/ Cir.2010
SU
Sullivan
PERSON30 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
Queens
LOCATION29 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
Louisiana
LOCATION29 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
CO
Collins
PERSON29 w/ Richmond·4 w/ Cir.2010
Bill Richardson
PERSON27 w/ Richmond·5 w/ Cir.2010