Epstein Secrets

d and common objectives. Both Counts Three and Five are charged under the same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. But going beyond this "general level" of similarity, the statutory objectives of the two counts differ. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669. Count Three is a c

peculation, with the apparent presumption that absent evidence would necessarily favor the Defendant, is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. See United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (no prejudice where there is "no way of knowing what [an absent witness's] testimony would have been

, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury's indictment." United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this determination, the Court first

elf pointed out, the characteristics of the modus operandi must be "sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also United States v. Walla, No. 14—CR- 213 (MICE), 2014 WL 3734522, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded

elf pointed out, the characteristics of the modus operandi must be "sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern's existence." United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984)); see also United States v. Walla, No. 14—CR- 213 (MICE), 2014 WL 3734522, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded