Epstein Secrets

02) United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. Ashy*: 29 passim 320 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2009) 22 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 23 United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th C

wever, the government "must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the defendant." Innes v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, the NPA unambiguously precludes prosecution of Epstein's potential co- conspirators, and the in

02) United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) United States v. Ashy*: 29 passim 320 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2009) 22 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 23 United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C.), affd, 749 F.2d 33 (4th C

wever, the government "must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the defendant." Innes v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, the NPA unambiguously precludes prosecution of Epstein's potential co- conspirators, and the in

See supra p. 33. FN 10. See supra n. 2. FN I 1. Defendant's reliance on United States v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the Eighth Circuit determined that the defend- ant had breached a cooperation agree- ment, thus permitting the government to prosecute him for the

Second Circuit has stated, Icjomparing a criminal defend- ant to a merchant in the marketplace is an inappro- priate analogy that we have rejected." Innes v. Dalsheitn, 864 F.2d 974, 978 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 809, 110 S.Ct. 50, 107 L.Ed.2d 19 (1989). See United States v. Khan, 920 F.2