Epstein Secrets

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

.S.C. § 3I42(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

.S.C. § 3I42(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

.S.C. § 3I42(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility

d victims relevant to Count One of the instant Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations

.S.C. § 3I42(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

United States v. Page, 657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) 205,209,210,220 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 252 United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) 253 United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) 115, 161, 162 United States v. Pena, 932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), lijt has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402." United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402." United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible

cedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), li]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments."' United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez,

relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402." United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible

w, the motions should be denied in their entirety. First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C

ited States v. Page, 657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) 205, 209, 210, 220 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 252 United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) 253 United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) 115, 161, 162 United States v. Pena, 932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.