Epstein Secrets

s opinion that the defendants did not have a Double Jeopardy claim because they "were never in jeopardy with respect to the dismissed counts of the Eastern District indictment." Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671. The court was clear that the defendants' only claim on appeal was that the Southern District indictment "viol

es brought in the Eastern District of New York were "sufficiently distinct" from the charges previously dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement with the Central District of California to permit the Eastern District to prosecute the defendant on the new charges. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. at 855-56. The court ultimately co

); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia"); Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 270 ("Paragraph 13 explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for t

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....

); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia"); Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 270 ("Paragraph 13 explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for t

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....