Epstein Secrets

HE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800

ndment could not retroactively extend the statute of limitations for live charges, the trial court's holding would have been in direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006). But in Leo Sure Chief the alleged victim had not yet reached age 25 as of t

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

nterlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

for information about illegal drug trading occurred "no more than five" times during agent's three-plus years at the Lukeville border station. See Michael Chenoff. Secretary of Homeland Security. Searches Are Legal. Essential. USA Today. July 16. 2008 ("Of the approximately 400 million travelers who entered

thority expansively. See 473 U.S. at 539-40. 542-44, 105 S.Ct. 3304. 3 See, e.g.. Flores-Montano. 541 U.S. at 152-55. 124 S.Ct. 1582 (overturning the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the border search of a gas tank required reasonable suspicion): Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 616-22.97 S.Ct. 1972 (overturning the ■. Circu

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The 10 EFTA00583769 Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

nterlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

terlocutory appeal from an order compelling the testimony of their former attorney over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Krane, concluding that the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise th