Epstein Secrets

the Defendant argues that testimony resulted in the "ultimate prejudice" because it led to the jury improperly convicting her on three of the four Mann Act counts. Maxwell Br. at 18. For the same reasons noted above, the Defendant was not prejudiced by the Court's response to the jury note because the

, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury's indictment." United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this determination, the Court first

United States v. Walla, No. 14—CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014) 12 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) 7 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) 7 Mann Act passim Other Authorities Fed. R. Evid. 401 12 Fed. R. Evid. 402 11, 12 Fed. R. Evid. 403 passim Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) passim Fed. R. Evid

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded

United States v. Walla, No. 14—CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014) 12 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) 7 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) 7 Mann Act passim Other Authorities Fed. R. Evid. 401 12 Fed. R. Evid. 402 11, 12 Fed. R. Evid. 403 passim Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) passim Fed. R. Evid

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded