Epstein Secrets

45 A.D.3d 429 (1st Dept. 2007) 36 People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009) 36-37, 40 People v. O'Neal, 35 A.D.3d 302 (1st Dept. 2006) 36 People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406 (2010) 36 People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271 (1st Dept. 2002) 38 People v. Smith, 75 A.D.3d 1112 (4th Dept. 2010) 58 People v. Vas

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutional complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, t

45 A.D.3d 429 (1st Dept. 2007) 36 People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563 (2009) 36-37, 40 People v. O'Neal, 35 A.D.3d 302 (1st Dept. 2006) 36 People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406 (2010) 36 People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271 (1st Dept. 2002) 38 People v. Smith, 75 A.D.3d 1112 (4th Dept. 2010) 58 People v. Vas

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutional complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, t

hat the risk factors giving rise to the offender's score were supported by "dear and convincing evidence." ,egg Correction Law §168- n(3); People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408 (2010); People v. O'Neal. 35 A.D.3d 302 (1st Dept 2006). That SORA employs this relatively-relaxed standard, as opposed to proo

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutbnal complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, th