Epstein Secrets

tates v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en bane) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate IS The Government notes t

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unit

er necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government's continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative de

6 United States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 106 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) 39 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 50 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 156 United States v. Dumitru, 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 201

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate to the instant Is The Gov

8) 105 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 174, 176, 177 United S

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 53 EFTA00095145 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the

States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SW) (A

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SW) (A

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

tates v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (

) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

de only a "bare allegation that [certain] records have been lost or destroyed," but without explaining when or why they were lost. United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Further, the Defendant does not explain whether any attempt was made to acquire these records either direc

t have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 785-86, 788-90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pit-indictment delay where a material defense witness had died); United States v. Sny