Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • • • • • • • x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF

NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • • • • • • • x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A.

MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & DRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097312 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ARGUMENT I. The Counts Are Improperly Joined A. The Counts are Dissim

the "Mann Act Counts." For the reasons stated in Ms. Maxwell's original Motion and this Reply, the Court shou

Y. 1991) 10 United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) 6 United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 4 United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1988) 6 United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) 3 United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • • • • • • • x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF

NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. • • • • • • • • x 20 Cr. 330 (MN) REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A.

MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & DRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Phone: Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00097359 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ARGUMENT I. The Counts Are Improperly Joined A. The Counts are Dissim

the "Mann Act Counts." For the reasons stated in Ms. Maxwell's original Motion and this Reply, the Court shou

Y. 1991) 10 United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) 6 United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 4 United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1988) 6 United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) 3 United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996)

nominations of Robert P. Chamberlin and James D. Maxwell II both to be a United States District Judge for

hevrolet Malibu, which had a fake plate for part of the drive, detectives say. Authorities believe the vehicle travelled along Interstate 15 through Littlefield, Arizona, as Ashlee, and potentially Melodee, drove back to California on Oct. 9 or Oct. 10. Detectives are working to pinpoint the last time Melod

ed arguments that purely intrastate conduct could not be prosecuted under the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ("CPPA"). First, in Maxwell, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) was not unconstitutional as applied to a defen- dant's intrastate possession of child por- nography, even

d in violation of law." We have held that where a defendant is given the minimum sentence permit by the statute of conviction, see United States Littlefield 105 F.3d 527, 528 (9th Cir.199 , or a sentence within the statutory maximum, see United States I Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843-44 (9th Cir.1996), su