er alleged abuse to the FBI, at a time when the events were most fresh in her mind, is extraordinarily significant. It 5 The government argues that Cambindo Valencia is inapposite because it contends that the charges against the defendant's wife were dismissed because her prosecution violated the defendant's plea

001) 12 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) II, 12, 13 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) passim United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 13, 14 United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 10 United States v. Dionisio, 503 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2

ht not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husban

passim 820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) 22, 23 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 16 United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 20 United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 17 United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th C