Epstein Secrets

11 N.Y.3d 416 (2008) 18 People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) '39 People v. Judson, 50 A.D.3d 1242 (3d Dep't 2008) 27 People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep't 2010) 27 People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009) 26 People v. Miranda, 24 A.D.3d 909 (3d Dep't 2005) 47 People v. Ram

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

, 11 N.Y.3d 416 (2008) 18 People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) '19 People v. Judson, 50 A.D.3d 1242 (3d Dep't 2008) 97 People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep't 2010) 27 People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009) 26 People u. Miranda, 24 A.D.3d 909 (3d Dep't 2005) 47 People v. Ram

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

, 11 N.Y.3d 416 (2008) 18 People v. Jordan, 31 A.D.3d 1196 (4th Dep't 2006) 39 People v. Judson, 50 A.D.3d 1242 (3d Dep't 2008) 27 People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep't 2010) 97 People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009) People v. Miranda, 24 A.D.3d 909 (3d Dep't 2005) 47 People v. Rampino,

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

be rejected when it is unduly speculative or 26 EFTA00232693 its accuracy is undermined by other more compelling evidence"); see also People v. Mabee, 69 A.D.3d 820 (2d Dep't 2010) (finding Board's case summary did not constitute clear and convincing evidence to support scoring under SORA where i

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa