Browse by Document Type
Legal (11,650 documents)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 22 of 45
prejudicial variance. For the following reasons, the Court disagrees and denies the Defendant’s
motion on this basis.
A. Applicable La
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page16 of 45
overturn any of the factual findings made by the jury” —it means only that, “as a matter of law,
the jury found the same thing twice.”
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page10of 45
roles played by those participants, significantly favors the Defendant as to the second Korfant
factor. See Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669; Her
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657 Filed 04/29/22 Page9of45
*11 (concluding that conspiracies to defraud the United States and to commit mail and wire
fraud were the same conspiracy as earlier conspi
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page6of45
(summary order) (citing United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per
curiam)); United States v. Villa, 744 F. App’x 716
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657 _ Filed 04/29/22 Page5of45
A. Applicable law
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall “be
subject for the same offence to
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657 Filed 04/29/22 Page4of45
eighteen, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2. S2 Indictment,
Dkt. No. 187.!
In two prior pretrial moti
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657 Filed 04/29/22 Page1of45
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ce lee al |
United States of Ame
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document653_ Filed 04/01/22 Page 36 of 40
personal memories, some from decades earlier and some involving sensitive or tragic events. So
long as jurors can be fair and impartia
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document653_ Filed 04/01/22 Page 14 of 40
the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.” /d. at 171
(quoting Zorres, 128 F.3d at 47). The en
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document647_ Filed 03/11/22 Page17 of 24
three required travel to New York whereas Count Five did not require interstate travel. (Opp. at
28). Yet the government still readily
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document647_ Filed 03/11/22 Page 16 of 24
F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), Count Three and Count Five are multiplicitous. The
Court should therefore enter judgment on
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document647 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page15 of 24
counts in the Indictment or in its arguments to the jury as two separate criminal agreements
between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to commit
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page /7 of 24
indicating that it is confused, “[i]t is the responsibility of the trial judge to provide the jury with
sufficient instruction to enab
aceneeesbaaememaeiiieaielinemmiaiy \ar 7 miinamemmanei ae ememaiaaall
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 _ Filed 03/18/13 Page 10 of 41
conversations with David Parse, that the steps of the transac
S.CT
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-v.- : S3 09 Cr. 581 (WHP)
PAUL DAUGERDAS,
CédasPAROAS URS PAN 1 BemOPRemtiGie 0 FPS DAE ab &tiig ®OLH dfS0B0
February 15, 2012
96:25;238:5
Sternheim (30)
4:23,24,25;5:8, 10,22,
24,6:3 6;54:1 ,2,3;84:12,
14,17;97:5,7,9,22,25:
98:22,25;99:7;1
CaasP AC OAD UE DAE 1 ei PRS mi GAGeI? O FASS DAIL? ab dbeg6 266 f af 76 7
February 15, 2012
hardcopies (1) | highest (8)
31:2 34:4,43:20;44:3-
hardship (5) 59:10;86:12;164:24;
13:17,19,20,22;29:20
Cas 20ND ORB PN Emin era niGeaeseIP
A-5655
February 15, 2012
C2frdaus
11
}12
13
j14
15
16
\17
‘18
‘19
20
21
22
|23
\24
25
4,
oonwaon ww &® WwW
C2irdaus
O FSS DBI ab dteg® Bat af 767
UNITED
Casasé 2k Oreo aiites PAE nama a FRED CREE 22a Pee pays Ba f G76 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vy
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., February 15, 2012
C2trdaus Conrad - direct Page 169 C2frdau5 Gonrad - direc
Casasé 2k Oreo aiites PAE come aa FRED ORS LEG 222 Pektfeye 24f 676 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., February 15, 2012
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - diract Page 121 | C2FFDAU4 Conrad - d
eee eee ee TEST LORD ED CREEDO EE?
February 15, 2012
wot nun &® Wh
OPOPOPO POPOL
PH
Ho
19
/20
21
22
(23
|24
25
C2FFDAU4
ra
oon !louw & WwW Ww
10
v be 8
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
as baimmdaaieaelemmny Wir <1 FRED ORS LE 2a Peake faye 124 f 6767
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v
February 15, 2012 PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL.,
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 117 C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct
Casasé 2k Oreo aiites PAE nome Way fa FRED REZ 22 Peake BS Gi G76 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, y
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL., February 15, 2012
C2FFDAU4 Conrad - direct Page 105 | C2FFDAU4 Conrad - dir
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page 25 of 32
At any hearing it is the Court’s job to evaluate the evidence presented, not present the
evidence. The evidence elicited should be t
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document643_ Filed 03/11/22 Page 45 of 49
into the subject, by allowing [him] an opportunity to fully and fairly brief the Court on the relevant
issues.” (/d. at 7).
In his mo
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page 46 of 49
Moreover, there can be no real concern, as the defendant claims, that providing Juror 50
with his questionnaire will “color” Juror 5
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 44 of 49
his jury service. These requests similarly call for information barred by Rule 606(b). And the
overbreadth of this information is evid
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 14 of 49
Cir. 2006); see also Part II.B.2.a, infra. The McDonough test is “an exacting hurdle” because
“motions to set aside a jury verdict are
CéSasb: 2@20rOCRRSPAGN DomuwmeantGi2t AltelORs2“ye22 Pateygelofdaicso
Juror ID: re,
21a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as |
a fair and impartial
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 63 of 66
The submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled
upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parti
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 59 of 66
F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis
for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matte
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 60 of 66
sought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence,
and tried to flee from the media.
Under analo
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 55 of 66
experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory
strike.
II. The scope of any evidentiary hear
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 66
Table of Authorities
Cases
Adams v. Texds, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) 00... ceeceescecesecesceecnsecesneesssecsseersneecsaeeesneeenaeceseeesnee
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 10 of 29
Juror ID: §0O
If yes, is there anything about that experience that. would prevent you from acting as
a fair and impartial juror in thi
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 46of51
made any showing that the preindictment delay was an intentional device designed by the
Government to gain a tactical advantage.”); Unite
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 45of51
B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish that the Government Delayed the Indictment
for an Improper Purpose
3. Applicable Law
If, and o
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 44of51
be helpful to her. Indeed, she again ignores that the flight manifests may well have helped the
Government. Once again, the defendant’s a
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 39of51
States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a
showing. Her abstract assertions simply do not r
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 37 of51
witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr.
541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *4-5 (S.D
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 36of51
The Second Circuit standard for pre-indictment delay imposes a heavy burden on the
defendant to show “both that the Government intentiona
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 35of51
witnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she can use to carry her heavy burden.
Without proof of actual prejudice, the
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 30of51
The defendant asks the Court to ignore these legal distinctions. In particular, the defendant
urges the Court not to apply the first Korf
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 31of51
2. Overt Acts
Counts Three and Five of the S2 Indictment charged different overt acts. There is no
overlap whatsoever in the overt acts
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 28 of51
1. Offenses Charged
Turning to the first Korfant factor, the “criminal offenses charged,” Counts Three and Five
plainly charge differen
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 26of51
her motion, that these counts are “virtually identical.” (Def. Mot. at 22). But charges that cover
different schemes under different stat
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 22 of 51
did not modify any essential element of the offense or permit conviction based on an entirely
different theory. Referring the jury back
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 21of51
“almost invariable assumption of the law . . . that jurors follow their instructions”). Accordingly,
even if the jury note suggests some
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 20o0f51
defendant based on an unsupported speculative leap from Jane’s testimony. That is not plausible,
and it certainly is not a “substantiall