UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States of America
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
EFTA00102999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
BACKGROUND 2
ARGUMENT 3
I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3
A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4
1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5
2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9
B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15
1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15
2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17
C. The Defendant Has Offered No Basis for Additional Discovery or a Hearing 21
II. The Indictment Is Timely 23
A. Statutory Background 24
B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively 26
1. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step One of Landgraf 28
2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf 32
C. The Defendant's Crimes Involved the Sexual Abuse of Minors 36
III. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-
Trial Delay Should Be Denied 41
A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice 42
1. Applicable Law 42
2. Discussion 44
B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish That the Government Delayed the Indictment for
An Improper Purpose 52
1. Applicable Law 52
2. Discussion 54
IV. The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motions to Suppress 59
A. Factual Background 61
1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell 61
2. February 2016 Meeting 62
3. The April and July 2016 Depositions of Maxwell 64
4. The USAO-SDNY Commences the Instant Investigation in 2018 65
5. The USAO-SDNY's Subpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials 66
6. Proceedings before Chief Judge McMahon 68
a. March 26, 2019 Hearing 68
b. April 9, 2019 Hearing 70
EFTA00103000
c. Chief Judge McMahon's Memorandum and Order 71
7. Magistrate Judge Netbum's Order 74
8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74
9. The New York Daily News Article 75
B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76
1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76
a. Applicable Law 76
b. Discussion 79
2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 82
a. Maxwell Has Not Established Standing 82
i. Applicable Law 82
ii. Discussion 84
b. The Government Acted in Good Faith 86
i. Applicable Law 86
ii. Discussion 88
c. Suppression of Certain Materials Would Be Improper Under the Inevitable Discovery
Doctrine 93
i. Applicable Law 93
ii. Discussion 94
3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to the Subpoena
Under the Fifth Amendment Is Without Merit 96
a. Applicable Law 96
i. The Fifth Amendment — Generally 96
ii. The Fifth Amendment — Act of Production Privilege 97
iii. The Fifth Amendment — When Private Action Is Deemed Government Action 98
b. Discussion 99
4. The Government Did Not Violate Maxwell's Due Process Rights 103
a. Applicable Law 104
b. Discussion 107
5. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order Suppression 109
a. Applicable Law 109
b. Discussion 110
6. The Defendant Is Not Entitled to a Hearing 111
a. Applicable Law 112
b. Discussion 115
V. The Jury Should Decide Whether the Defendant Committed Perjury 116
A. Factual Background 117
B. Applicable Law 119
C. Discussion 122
1. April 2016 Deposition 123
2. July 2016 Deposition 129
3. Materiality 135
EFTA00103001
VI. Counts Five and Six Are Properly Joined and Should Not Be Severed 138
A. Applicable Law 138
B. Discussion 141
VII. The Indictment Contains the Elements of Each Offense and Provides the Defendant
More Than Adequate Notice of the Charges Against Her 150
A. Applicable Law 150
B. Discussion 152
VIII. There Is No Basis to Strike Any Portion of the Indictment 157
A. Relevant Facts 158
B. Applicable Law 159
C. Discussion 161
IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is
Premature 169
A. Relevant Facts 169
B. Applicable Law 170
C. Discussion 172
X. The Defendant's Various Disclosure Motions Should be Denied 174
A. Bill of Particulars Is Not Warranted 174
1. Applicable Law 174
2. Discussion 178
B. The Defendant's Requests for Early Production of a Witness List and Jencks Act Material
Should Be Denied 182
1. Applicable Law 182
2. Discussion 184
C. The Defendant's Additional Requests for Disclosure Should Be Denied 185
XI. The Use of a Grand Jury Siting in White Plains Was Entirely Proper 193
A. Background 194
1. The SDNY and Local Rules for the Division of Business 194
2. The SDNY Jury Plan 195
B. Applicable Law 197
C. Discussion 198
1. The Defendant Was Properly Indicted by a Grand Jury Sitting in White Plains 198
2. The Defendant's Fair Cross-Section Claim Is Meritless 205
a. The Defendant Has Not Established that Blacks or Hispanics Are Unfairly
Represented 205
b. Any Potential Underrepresentation Is Not Due to Systematic Exclusion 210
CONCLUSION 212
iii
EFTA00103002
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email
Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional
Responsibility
Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call
Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting
Exhibit 6: November 30, 2018 Email
Exhibit 7: December 6, 2018 Email
Exhibit 8: February 28, 2019 Government Letter to Judge Sweet
Exhibit 9: February 28, 2019 Government Letter to Judge Netbum
Exhibit 10: Transcript of April 22, 2016 Deposition
Exhibit 11: Transcript of July 22, 2016 Deposition
Exhibit 12: Affidavit of Dr. Bernard R. Siskin
iv
EFTA00103003
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266 (1993)
Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer; Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., Page(s)
152
876 F.2d 1080 (2d Cir. 1989) 106, 119, 149
Arizona v. Youngblood,
488 U.S. 51 (1988) 76
Aronson v. K. Arakelian, Inc.,
154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19
Berghuis v. Smith,
559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302
Blaszczak,
17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275
Blissett v. Lefevre,
924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158
Blum v. Yaretsky,
457 U.S. 991 (1982) 143
Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet,
405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005) 24
Botha v. Don King Productions, Inc.,
No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) 148
Boyd v. United States,
116 U.S. 616 (1886) 145
Branzburg v. Hayes,
408 U.S. 665 (1972) 110
Bridges v. United States,
346 U.S. 209 (1953) 53
Bronston v. United States,
409 U.S. 352 (1973) 181
Bryson v. United States,
396 U.S. 64 (1969) 147
Burgess v. United States,
552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States,
491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159
Carpenter v. United States,
138 S. Ct. 2206 passim
Chambers v. Mississippi,
410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159
Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.,
154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim
EFTA00103004
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
567 U.S. 142 (2012)
Colorado v. Connelly, 51
479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142
Colorado v. Spring,
479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138
County of Sacramento v. Lewis,
523 U.S. 833 (1998) 152
Cruz v. Maypa,
773 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2014) 43
Davis v. United States,
564 U.S. 229 (2011) 122
Doe 1 v. United States,
359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 14
Doe No. 1. v. United States,
749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176
Dowling v. United States,
493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76
Duren v. Missouri,
439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296
Edwards v. Mazzuca,
No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234
Falter v. United States,
23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928) 45
Fisher v. United States,
425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146
Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n,
396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143
Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171
Gatto,
17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275
Golino v. City of New Haven,
950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125
Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989) 151
Grant v. United States,
282 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1960) 164
Greer v. Miller,
483 U.S. 756 (1987) 158
Grunewald v. United States,
353 U.S. 391 (1957) 248
Hamling v. United States,
418 U.S. 87 (1974) 225, 227
vi
EFTA00103005
Hemphill v. United States,
392 F.2d 45 (8th Cir. 1968) 268
Herring v. United States,
555 U.S. 135 (2009) 123
Howell v. Superintendent Rockview Sc!,
939 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2019) 302
Huddleston v. United States,
485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254
In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise",
), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991,
945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992,
1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145
In re Grand Jury Subpoena,
826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136
In re Grand Jury Subpoena,
836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) 149
In re Three Grand Jwy Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29,
1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) 139
In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5,
1988, 847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) 136
In re U.S.,
834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) 284
In re Various Grand Amy Subpoenas,
924 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), aff'd, 579 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2014) 140
Intl Equity !nvs., Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd.,
No. 05 Civ. 2745 (JGK) (RLE), 2010 WL 779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111
Johnson v. United States,
520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200
Kungys v. United States,
485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222
Landgraf v. USI Film Products,
511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42
Leocal v. Ashcroft,
543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57
Madanes v. Madanes,
186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141
Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp.,
594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim
Martinez v. McAleenan,
385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151
Michigan v. Tucker,
417 U.S. 433 (1974) 137
vii
EFTA00103006
Miller v. Pate,
386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175
Mills v. Scully,
826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158
Minnesota v. Mwphy,
465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144
Murray v. Met Life Ins. Co.,
583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223
Nijhawan v. Holder,
557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56
Nix v. Williams,
467 U.S. 431 (1984) 132, 133
North Carolina v. Pearce,
395 U.S. 711 (1969) 259
Oregon v. Elstad,
470 U.S. 298 (1985) 139, 141
Palmieri v. State of N.Y.,
779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 108, 112, 114
Rakas v. Illinois,
439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115, 116, 118
Ratzlaf v. United States,
510 U.S. 135 (1994) 165
Rawlings v. Kentucky,
448 U.S. 98 (1980) 116
Richardson v. Marsh,
481 U.S. 200 (1987) 212
Rivera v. United States,
928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) 168, 172
Rochin,
342 U.S., 72 S. Ct. 205 153
Rosencrans v. United States,
165 U.S. 257 (1897) 296
Russell v. United States,
369 U.S. 749 (1962) 229
Rutenberg v. United States,
245 U.S. 480 (1918) 292
Salinas v. United States,
522 U.S. 52 (1997) 245
Santobello v. United States,
No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1998 WL 113950 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) 21
Sch. Dist. No. 7,
167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61
SEC v. TheStreetcom,
273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113
viii
EFTA00103007
Silver,
15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275
Skelos,
15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275
Smith v. Maryland,
442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118
Stogner v. California,
539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45
Swain v. Alabama,
380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300
Taylor v. Louisiana,
419 U.S. 522 (1975) 299, 300
Taylor v. United States,
495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56
Thom v. Ashcroft,
369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47
Toussie v. United States,
397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48
United State v. Nader,
425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim
United States v. Ahmed,
992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166
United States v. Ahmed,
No. 10 Cr. 131 (PKC), 2011 WL 5041456 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2011) 243
United States v. Al Kassar,
660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) 154
United States v. Alameh,
341 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2003) 77, 78, 81
United States v. Alberti,
568 F.2d 617 (2d Cir. 1977) 187
United States v. Aleman,
286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002) 27
United States v. Alfonso,
143 F.3d 772 (2d. Cir. 1998) 226
United States v. Amato,
15 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1994) 209
United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold,
184 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1999) 222
United States v. Anderson,
747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) 212
United States v. Anderson,
772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162
United States v. Annabi,
10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286
ix
EFTA00103008
United States v. Annabi,
771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) 5, 7, 8
United States v. Annabi,
771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 5
United States v. Arid,
12 Cr. 24 (LAP) 286
United States v. Anberger,
592 F. Supp. 2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 151
United States v. Ash,
464 F. Supp. 3d 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 145
United States v. Ashburn,
76 F. Supp. 3d 401 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) 126
United States v. Awadallah,
349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) 166, 168
United States v. Bahna,
68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995) passim
United States v. Balde,
20 Cr. 281 (KPF) 298
United States v. Barlow,
732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) 300
United States v. Barlow,
732 F. Supp. 2d 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 479 F. App'x 372 (2d Cir. 2012) 300, 302
United States v. Barnes,
520 F. Supp. 2d 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 300
United States v. Batchelder,
442 U.S. 114 (1979) 265
United States v. Bejasa,
904 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1990) 274
United States v. Bellomo,
263 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 268
United States v. Ben Zvi,
242 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) 41
United States v. Benussi,
216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) 248, 250
United States v. Biaggi,
675 F. Supp. 790 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) 268
United States v. Biaggi,
909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) 298, 300
United States v. Bin Laden,
91 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 240
United States v. Birney,
686 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1982) 61, 65
United States v. Bbrell,
470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) 183
EFTA00103009
United States v. Blakney,
941 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991) 205, 219
United States v. Blaszczak,
308 F. Supp. 3d 736 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 279
United States v. Block,
No. 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) 267
United States v. Bonacorsa,
528 F.2d 1218 (2d Cir. 1976) 180, 190, 197, 199
United States v. Bonventre,
646 F App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016) 271
United States v. Bortnovsky,
820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) 266, 267, 274
United States v. Botti,
No. 08 Cr. 230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) 218
United States v. Brand,
467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) 236
United States v. Brand,
556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977) 75
United States v. Brand,
No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) 257
United States v. Broccolo,
797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 207, 214, 217
United States v. Brown,
744 F. Supp. 558 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) 170
United States v. Brown,
800 F. App'x 455 (9th Cir. 2020), cent denied, No. 20-5064, S.Ct. , 2021 WL 78235 (Jan.
11, 2021)
United States v. Brown, 34, 39
No. 07-0296, 2008 WL 161146 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2008) 216
United States v. Brown,
No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 6
United States v. Bruno,
159 F. Supp. 3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) 7
United States v. Bunn,
154 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005) 237
United States v. Burke,
No. 09 Cr. 135 (SJ), 2011 WL 2609837 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2011) 82
United States v. Butler,
351 F. Supp. 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 243
United States v. Butler,
No. 04 Cr. 340, 2004 WL 2274751 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2004) 208, 211
United States v. Calandra,
414 U.S. 338 (1974) 110
United States v. Laming,
968 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1992) 165
xi
EFTA00103010
United States v. Campo Flores,
No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016) 281, 282
United States v. Canfield,
212 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2000) 167
United States v. Canter,
338 F. Supp. 2d 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 283
United States v. Carbonaro,
No. 02 Cr. 743 (RCC), 2004 WL 2222145 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) 83
United States v. Carpenter,
680 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2012) 50
United States v. Carson,
464 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1972) 217, 219
United States v. CFW Const. Co.,
583 F. Supp. 197 (D. S.C. 1984) 23
United States v. Chacko,
169 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1999) 259
United States v. Chalmers,
474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226
United States v. Chambers,
800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69
United States v. Chan Lo,
No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d
Cir. 2017)
United States v. Chen,
378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004)
United States v. Cheung Kin Ping,
555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977)
United States v. Chuang, 183
271
68, 81
897 F.2d 646 (2d Cir. 1990) 115, 116
United States v. Coffey,
361 F. Supp. 2d 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 228
United States v. Coke,
No. 07 Cr. 971 (RPP), 2011 WL 3738969 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2011) 153, 160, 163
United States v. Collins,
409 F. Supp. 3d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 278
United States v. Concepcion,
983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992) 252
United States v. Coppa,
267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) 274
United States v. Corbett,
750 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2014) 137
United States v. Cornielle,
171 F.3d 748 (2d Cir. 1999) 60, 77, 78, 85
United States v. Corr,
543 F.2d 1042 (2d Cir. 1976) 181
xii
EFTA00103011
United States v. Countentos,
651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) 57, 58
United States v. Cromitie,
727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2019) 154
United States v. Cromitie, et al.,
09 Cr. 558 (CM) 286
United States v. Crouch,
84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996) 75
United States v. D'Amico,
734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 268
United States v. Davis,
702 F.2d 418 (2d Cir. 1983) passim
United States v. DeFilippo,
No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) 169
United States v. Delacruz,
970 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 77
United States v. DePalma,
461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) 241, 250
United States v. Dewar,
489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 165
United States v. Diaz,
176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) 251, 253
United States v. DiGregorio,
795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155
United States v. Dodge,
597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54
United States v. Dornau,
356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73
United States v. Dorvee,
616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236
United States v. Drago,
No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (AYS), 2019 WL 3072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86
United States v. Dumitru,
No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261
United States v. Eldred,
933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123
United States v. El-Sadig,
133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23
United States v. Elsbery,
602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) 62, 72
United States v. Estrada,
320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) 259
United States v. Ewell,
383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80
EFTA00103012
United States v. Falso,
544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008)
United States v. Farmer,
137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Feldman,
939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019)
United States v. Fennell, 166, 169
179, 180
8, 20, 27
496 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 284, 286
United States v. Figueroa,
618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980) 255
United States v. Fiumano,
No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) 70
United States v. Florence,
456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293
United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc.,
853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 23, 24
United States v. Forde,
740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim
United States v. Gallo,
No. 98 Cr. (JGK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. II, 1999) 275, 281
United States v. Gambino,
838 F. Supp. 744 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 70
United States v. Gaudin,
515 U.S. 506 (1995) 182, 184, 200, 222
United States v. Geaney,
417 F.2d 1116 (2d Cir. 1969) 284
United States v. Gentile,
235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) 48
United States v. Ghailani,
751 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 155
United States v. Ghavami,
No. 10 Cr. 1217 (KMW), 2012 WL 2878126 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012) 262
United States v. Gibson,
175 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268
United States v. Gilbert,
266 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) 62
United States v. Gillette,
383 F.2d 843 (2d Cir. 1967) 165
United States v. Gonzalez,
No. 00 Cr. 447, 2000 WL 1721171 85
United States v. Gotyhed,
165 F.2d 360 (2d Cir. 1948) 292
United States v. Gracesqui,
No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC), 2015 WL 5231168 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2015), afrd, 730 F. App'x 25
(2d Cir. 2018) 209
xiv
EFTA00103013
United States v. Green,
981 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2020) 124
United States v. Greer,
956 F. Supp. 525 (D. Vt. 1997) 72
United States v. Grffith,
No. 99 Cr. (HB), 2000 WL 1253265 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) 264
United States v. Guerrier,
18 Cr. 284 (JSR) 286
United States v. Guzman,
337 F. Supp. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) 300
United States v. Halkbank,
No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), 2020 WL 5849512 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. I, 2020) 261
United States v. Hallahan,
756 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2014) 19
United States v. Halper,
590 F.2d 422 (2d Cir. 1978) 216
United States v. Haqq,
278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) 115
United States v. Harrison,
764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72
United States v. Hastings,
461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160
United States v. Heath,
455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133
United States v. Henderson,
337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62
United States v. Henry,
861 F. Supp. 1190 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) 269
United States v. Herbert,
698 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1983) 293
United States v. Hernandez,
85 F.3d 1023 (2d Cir. 1996) 242
United States v. Hester,
No. 19 Cr. 324 (NSR), 2020 WL 3483702 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020) 211
United States v. Heyward,
No. 10 Cr. 84 (LTS), 2010 WL 4484642 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2010) 154
United States v. Hillegas,
578 F.2d 453 (2d Cir. 1978) 79
United States v. Hoo,
825 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1987) 78
United States v. Hsia,
24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) 249
United States v. lannelli,
461 F.2d 483 (2d Cir. 1972) 64
xv
EFTA00103014
United States v. Israel,
05 Cr. 1039 (CM) 286
United States v. Jackman,
46 F.3d 1240 (2d Cir. 1995) 300, 301
United States v. Jqffries,
405 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2005) 33, 37, 38, 46
United States v. Jenkins,
727 F. App'x 732 (2d Cir. 2018) 194
United States v. Jennings,
960 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1992) 162
United States v. Jimenez,
824 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 240, 268
United States v. Johns,
15 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 1994) 37
United States v. Johnson,
21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 294
United States v. Jones,
482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259
United States v. Josephberg,
459 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2006) passim
United States v. Kaplan,
758 F. App'x 34 (2d Cir. 2018) 182
United States v. Kenny,
883 F. Supp. 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) 294
United States v. Kidd,
386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 231, 232
United States v. King,
560 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1977) 64
United States v. Kozel,
No. 19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) 236
United States v. Kross,
14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 183, 221, 222
United States v. LaFlam,
369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) 254
United States v. Lahey,
967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168
United States v. Lambus,
897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim
United States v. Laskow,
688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8
United States v. Laskow,
688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5
United States v. Laurenti,
581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79
xvi
EFTA00103015
United States v. Lawson,
683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982)
United States v. Leo Sure Chief
438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006)
United States v. Leon,
468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78
33, 38, 46
124, 125
United States v. Leonelli,
428 F. Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) 268
United States v. Levy,
No. II Cr. 62 (PAC), 2013 WL 664712 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2013) 267
United States v. Lighte,
782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) passim
United States v. Loera,
333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 152
United States v. Long,
697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65
United States v. Lopez,
944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26
United States v. Lovasco,
431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82
United States v. Mahabub,
No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269
United States v. Mandell,
710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267
United States v. Marcus,
628 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) 248
United States v. Mariamma Vijua,
No. 15 Cr. 240, 2016 WL 107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) 22
United States v. Marion,
404 U.S. 307 (1971) 59, 63, 72
United States v. Markiewicz,
978 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1992) 178, 180, 187, 198
United States v. Martin,
426 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2005) 167
United States v. Martinez,
No. 92 Cr. (SWK), 1993 WL 322768 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 1993) 216
United States v. Martinez,
No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1995 WL 10849 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) 77
United States v. Mason,
479 F. App'x 397 (2d Cir. 2012) 248
United States v. Mast,
735 F.2d 745 (2d Cir. 1984) 144
United States v. McCourty,
562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) 260
xvii
EFTA00103016
United States v. McDarrah,
351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) 257
United States v. Medina,
No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) 261
United States v. Miller,
116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292
United States v. Miller,
425 U.S. 435 (1976) 116, 117, 119
United States v. Miller,
911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) 44
United States v. Ming He,
94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161
United States v. Milan,
No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) 218
United States v. Mitchell,
966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144
United States v. Mitlof,
165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268
United States v. Monserrate,
No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) 267
United States v. Montoya-Eschevarria,
892 F. Supp. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 118
United States v. Moore,
968 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1992) 125
United States v. Morgan,
113 F.3d 1230, 1997 WL 268712 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished opinion) 45
United States v. Mostafa,
965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 242, 243, 247, 262
United States v. Mulder,
273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) 241, 242
United States v. Mullens,
536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) 139
United States v. Murgio,
209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247
United States v. Muric,
No. 10 Cr. 112 (LTS), 2010 WL 2891178 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010) 86
United States v. Myers,
692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161
United States v. Napolitano,
552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241
United States v. Nejad,
No. 18 Cr. 224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) 225
United States v. Nersesian,
824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) 233
xviii
EFTA00103017
United States v. Nitsche,
843 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2011) 201, 202
United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683 (1974) 282
United States v. Noble,
No. 07 Cr. 284 (RJS), 2008 WL 140966 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2008) 164
United States v. Okwumabua,
828 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1987) 138
United States v. Olivieri,
740 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 146
United States v. Oshatz,
700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 147, 148
United States v. Page,
657 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2011) 205, 209, 210, 220
United States v. Pascarella,
84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 252
United States v. Paulino,
445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) 253
United States v. Payner,
447 U.S. 727 (1980) 115, 161, 162
United States v. Pena,
932 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 221
United States v. Perez,
940 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y.I996) 281
United States v. Pierre-Louis,
No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) passim
United States v. Pipola,
83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) 253
United States v. Pbro,
212 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) 229
United States v. Pizarro,
No. 17 Cr. 151 (MN), 2018 WL 1737236 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018) passim
United States v. Plaza-Andrades,
507 F. App'x 22 (2d Cir. 2013) 291
United States v. Polos,
723 F. App'x 64 (2d Cir. 2018) 195
United States v. Post,
950 F. Supp. 2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 226
United States v. Potamitis,
739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) passim
United States v. Prisco,
391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 4
United States v. Quinones,
511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) 251
xix
EFTA00103018
United States v. Rahimi,
No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 225
United States v. Rahman,
189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) 154
United States v. Rajaratnam,
No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) 172
United States v. Ramnath,
131 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1997) 300
United States v. Raymonda,
780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) 124
United States v. Reeves, et al.,
16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286
United States v. Remington,
208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 146
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce,
549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235
United States v. Ricco,
549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61
United States v. Richardson,
512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975) 49
United States v. Richardson,
537 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2008) 293
United States v. Rioux,
930 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Conn. 1995) 297, 298
United States v. Rioux,
97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) passim
United States v. Rittweger,
259 F. Supp. 2d 275 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 268
United States v. Rivera,
546 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2008) 204, 220, 224
United States v. Rivera,
No. 09 Cr. 619 (SJF), 2011 WL 1429125, at (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011) 262
United States v. Rivera,
No. 16 Cr. 175 (LGS), 2017 WL 1843302 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2017) 274
United States v. Roberts,
660 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011) 138
United States v. Roberts,
852 F.2d 671 (2d Cir. 1988) 132
United States v. Rolan-Zapata,
916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990) 256
United States v. Rosa,
11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 253
United States v. Rosa,
626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 123
xx
EFTA00103019
United States v. Rubin,
609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 61
United States v. Rubinson,
543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 81
United States v. Ruiz,
702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 214
United States v. Ruiz,
894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1990) 207, 213, 214, 217
United States v. Russo,
483 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 274, 282
United States v. Russo,
801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 5, 11
United States v. Rutkoske,
506 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2007) 248
United States v. Salameh,
152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 5, 6, 245
United States v. Salerno,
481 U.S. 739 (1987) 151
United States v. Salmonese,
352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 247, 249
United States v. Sampson,
385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) 208
United States v. Sampson,
898 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2018) 200, 201
United States v. Sampson,
898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2018) 177, 178, 188
United States v. Samsonov,
No. 07 Cr. 1198 (CM), 2009 WL 176721 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2009) 269
United States v. Santiago,
987 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 75
United States v. Sarwari,
669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) 179, 180
United States v. Sattar,
272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 27
United States v. Savage,
970 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2020) 302
United States v. Scala,
388 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 67, 68, 71
United States v. Scam pa,
897 F.2d 63 (2d Cir. 1990) 69
United States v. Scam pa,
913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) passim
United States v. Schaefer,
No. 17 Cr. 400 (HZ), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121
xxi
EFTA00103020
United States v. Schafrick,
871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182
United States v. Schmidt,
105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154
United States v. Schneider,
801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57
United States v. Seabrook,
No. 10 Cr. 87 (DAB), 2010 WL 5174353 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2010) 282
United States v. Sensi,
No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) 34, 52
United States v. Sergentakis,
No. 05 Cr. 230 (JFK), 2005 WL 1994014 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2005) 275
United States v. Serrano,
No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2014 WL 2696569 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) 126
United States v. Shaw,
260 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) 165, 171
United States v. Nike,
751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) 255
United States v. Smith,
985 F. Supp. 2d 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 241, 243, 247
United States v. Smith,
No. 05 Cr. 922 (DLC), 2007 WL 980431 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), affd, F. App'x 636 (2d Cir.
2009)
United States v. Snyder,
668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1982)
United States v. Soares,
66 F. Supp. 2d 391 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
United States v. Spears, 206
63, 78
295
159 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1999) 62, 66, 67
United States v. Sprouts,
282 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2002) 63
United States v. Stavroulakis,
952 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1992) 225, 233
United States v. Stein,
456 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1972) 68
United States v. Stein,
541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 142, 143
United States v. Stokes,
733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132
United States v. Stringer,
730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231
United States v. Strohm,
671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190
United States v. Swanson,
210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170
EFTA00103021
United States v. Sweig,
441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) 207, 211, 217
United States v. Tanu,
589 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1978) 79
United States v. Thai,
29 F.3d 785 (2d Cir. 1994) 252
United States v. Thompson,
13 Cr. 378 (AJN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 281, 284
United States v. Thompson,
896 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2018) 236
United States v. Thompson,
No. 13 Cr. 378 (MN), 2013 WL 6246489 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2013) 274
United States v. Torres,
901 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1990) 266, 268, 271
United States v. Towne,
870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) 251
United States v. Tracy,
12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir. 1993) 283
United States v. Tram :::: ti,
513 F.2d 1087 (2d Cir. 1975) 225, 233
United States v. Tranquillo,
606 F. Supp. 2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 284
United States v. Trippe,
171 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 267
United States v. Triumph Capital Group, Inc.,
237 F. App'x 625 (2d Cir. 2007) 184, 187
United States v. Turoff,
853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1988) 204
United States v. Ulbricht,
No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), 2014 WL 5090039 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014) 118, 275
United States v. Urena,
989 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 28, 171
United States v. Valentine,
820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987) 156, 157, 158
United States v. Valona,
834 F.2d 1334 (7th Cir. 1987) 66
United States v. Vickers,
708 F. App'x 732 (2d Cir. 2017) 256
United States v. Vickers,
No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) passim
United States v. Vilar,
No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) 169
United States v. Villegas,
899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115
EFTA00103022
United States v. Walker,
191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70
United States v. Walsh,
194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271
United States v. Walters,
910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152
United States v. Washington,
431 U.S. 181 (1977) 136, 137, 138
United States v. Watson,
599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78
United States v. Wedd,
No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 271
United States v. Weiner,
479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187
United States v. Werner,
620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205, 206, 208, 223
United States v. Wey,
No. 15 Cr. 611 (MN), 2017 WL 237651 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017) 85, 227, 229
United States v. Williams,
205 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2000) 70
United States v. Williams,
No. 10 Cr. 622 (ADS), 2018 WL 4623017 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) 123
United States v. Winter,
348 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1965) 146
United States v. Wong,
431 U.S. 174 (1977) 146
United States v. Wright,
343 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003) 62
United States v. Ying Lin,
No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) 206
United States v. Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc.,
682 F. Supp. 757 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 291
United States v. Young,
08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) 235
United States v. Young,
No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) 234
United States v. Zackson,
12 F.3d 1178 (2d Cir. 1993) 253
United States v. Zodhiates,
901 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2018) 122, 126, 131
Valentine v. Konteh,
395 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) 235
Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.,
49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995) 42, 43
xxiv
EFTA00103023
Washington v. Glucksberg,
521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Weingarten v. United States,
865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017)
Zafiro v. United States,
506 U.S. 534 (1993) 209, 151
passim
210, 220
Zicarelli v. Dietz,
633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980) 293
Zietzke v. United States,
426 F. Supp. 3d 758 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 121
Statutes
18 U.S.C. §I623(a) 118
18 U.S.C. § 1591 152
18 U.S.C. § 1623 3, 115
18 U.S.C.§ 2 2, 3
18 U.S.C. § 2243 155
18 U.S.C. § 2422 passim
18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) 17
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) 17
18 U.S.C. § 2423 3, 151
18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) passim
18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) 17, 37
18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) 17
18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2) 87
18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) 88
18 U.S.C. § 3282 24, 35
18 U.S.C. § 3283 passim
18 U.S.C. § 3299 25
18 U.S.C. § 3500 181, 184
18 U.S.C. § 3500(a) 181
18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) 182
18 U.S.C. § 3509(a) 37
18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8) 36
18 U.S.C. § 3509(d) 152
18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) 24, 36
18 U.S.C. § 371 2, 151, 155, 168
18 U.S.C. § 3771 116
28 U.S.C.§ 112 192
28 U.S.C. § I12(b) 192, 200
28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq 193, 194
28 U.S.C. § 1863(a) 194
28 U.S.C. § I863(bX6) 195
28 U.S.C. § I865(b) 194
xxv
EFTA00103024
28 U.S.C. § 1869(e) 198, 200
28 U.S.C. § 81 192
New York Penal Law § 130.55 155
Pub. L. No. 101-647 24
Pub. L. No. 103-322 24
Pub. L. No. 108-21 25
Pub. L. No. 109-162 25
Pub. L. No. 109-248 25
Rules
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) 99
Fed. R. Civ. P 56 153
Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) 157
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 200
Fed. R. Crim. P. 21 221
Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) 206
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 88
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 168
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1) 168
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) 177
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) 192
Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) 156
Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a) 156
Fed. R. Evid. 402 183
Fed. R. Evid. 403 183, 185
Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) 184
Fed. R. Evid. 801 210
N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b) 166
Rule 14 157
Rule 404(b) 186
Other Authorities
149 Cong. Rec. S 5137 30
149 Cong. Rec. S 5147 30
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66 29
Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,
71 Harv. L. Rev. 593 (1958) 130
Sexual Abuse Prosecutions,
77 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1 (1986) 24
xxvi
EFTA00103025
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
S 1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's
twelve pre-trial motions, dated January 25, 2021 (the "Defense Motions"). In her pretrial motions,
the defendant seeks to throw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink at the Indictment, raising
myriad arguments that find little support in fact or law. For the reasons that follow, the motions
should be denied in their entirety.
First, the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida is entirely irrelevant to this case, and the defendant's
motion fails as a matter of law. Second, the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which
provides an extended statute of limitations for crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors. The
defendant's statute of limitations arguments run contrary to the text of the statute, the intent of
Congress, and the weight of authority. Third, the defendant's claim that the Government delayed
in bringing the indictment fails as a matter of law and fact. Fourth, both of the defendant's motions
to suppress evidence obtained through a judicially approved subpoena are meritless, and her
allegations of Government misconduct are baseless. Fifth, Counts Five and Six—which charge
the defendant with committing perjury—are properly pleaded, and the defendant's motion to
EFTA00103026
dismiss those charges improperly asks the Court to adjudicate her guilt. It is for the jury to decide
whether the defendant committed perjury, and the motion should be denied. Sixth, the crimes in
the indictment should be tried together, as all six counts of the indictment are logically connected
and provable through overlapping evidence. The Court should not sever this case, and thereby
require victims of child sexual abuse to testify at multiple trials. Seventh, the Indictment
indisputably alleges each element of every offense charged and provides the defendant with ample
notice of the charges against her. Eighth, the Indictment is properly pled and there is no basis to
strike any portion of it as surplusage. Ninth, the defense motion to dismiss one of the conspiracy
charges as multiplicitous is premature. Tenth, the defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars
or any of the other early disclosures she seeks. Finally, the use of a grand jury sitting in White
Plains to return the Indictment in this case was entirely proper.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned an indictment charging the
defendant in six counts. On July 2, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBP") arrested the
defendant. On July 8, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned a superseding indictment
(the "Indictment") containing the same charges, with ministerial corrections. (Dkt. No. 17). Count
One of the Indictment charges the defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to
entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two
charges the defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, and aiding and
abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with
conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporting minors to participate in
2
EFTA00103027
illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts
Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.i
ARGUMENT
I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case
The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement
("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
Florida (the "USAO-SDFL"). (Def. Mot. 1). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not
negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and her name is not contained anywhere in the
document; and (2) her crimes are not identified or named in any way in the NPA. Essentially, the
defendant claims she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period,
anywhere, in the United States, based on the language of a document that does not name her and
which she did not sign. Moreover, she seeks to enforce the NPA against a U.S. Attorney's Office
that did not negotiate the NPA and is not bound by it.
The defendant's arguments are meritless, and the Court should reject them. As a threshold
matter, under the well-settled law of this Circuit, the NPA is not enforceable in this District,
because the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Jeffrey Epstein is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York (the "USAO-SDNY"). Moreover, even if the NPA
applied to this District—which it does not—the NPA does not immunize the defendant from
prosecution for the crimes charged in the Indictment. Finally, because the defendant has failed to
As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's co-
conspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov't
Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the
extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government
intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial. The
Government does not anticipate that any new charges would require the production of any
additional discovery.
3
EFTA00103028
offer any evidence to support her claim that the NPA applies to this District, to the defendant, or
to the crimes in the Indictment, the Court should deny the defendant's request for discovery and
an evidentiary hearing.
A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York
As an initial matter, the NPA is not enforceable in this District. To the contrary, it is black-
letter law in this Circuit that a plea agreement in one district does not apply elsewhere, in the
absence of express indications not present here. Indeed, the Second Circuit has considered and
rejected the exact arguments the defendant advances in her motion. The defendant's motion is
without any basis in the law and should be denied.
It is well settled in the Second Circuit that "a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office
does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another." United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921
(2d Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ("A
plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea
is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction."));
United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit "presumes a narrow
reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a
more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854
(E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To
meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the
"negotiations between defendant and prosecutor" indicate a promise to bind other districts. United
States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant
has failed to establish that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that the NPA would bind other
districts.
4
EFTA00103029
1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other
Districts
Turning first to the text of the NPA, the terms of the agreement do not contain an
"affirmative appearance" that the parties who signed the NPA intended to bind any other U.S.
Attorney's Office. To begin with, there can be no dispute that only representatives of the USAO-
SDFL signed the agreement. There is no signature block for, nor specific mention of, any other
district or component of the Department of Justice.
In her motion, the defendant argues that the words "United States" in the NPA evince an
intent to bind the entire United States Government. (Def. Mot. 1 at 18). But the Second Circuit
has rejected this very argument: "[t]he mere use of the term 'government' in the plea agreement
does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other
than the particular district entering into the agreement." Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term
"United States." See United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir.
Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea
agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159
F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the
phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the
plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL.").
As the Second Circuit first explained in Annabi, plea agreements apply only in the district
in which they are executed, absent evidence that the parties agreed to broader restrictions:
As an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal
prosecutor agrees that `the Government' will dismiss counts of an
indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from
reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless
the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the
5
EFTA00103030
district in which the dismissed charges are initially brought.
However, the law has evolved to the contrary. A plea agreement
binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in
which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
agreement contemplates a broader restriction.
Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672 (citations omitted). Thus, under Annabi and its progeny, a plea agreement
only binds the U.S. Attorney's Office that executes the agreement, even if, as here, the agreement
references "the Government" or "the United States" and even if the agreement lacks a provision
that "expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the district" in which the agreement was
entered.2
Confronted with this clear and controlling authority, the defendant's motion attempts to
limit the rule of Annabi by noting that some decisions applying Annabi concerned plea agreements
that also included express provisions limiting the enforceability of the agreements to the districts
in which they were entered. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Essentially, the defendant argues that without an
express provision limiting the scope of the agreement, every plea agreement should be interpreted
to bind the entire federal government. But the law in this Circuit holds the opposite: the
presumption is that a plea agreement in one district does not bind another, absent an affirmative
appearance that the agreement extends more broadly. See Laskow, 688 F. Supp. at 854
("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is
presumed that a non-prosecution agreement binds offices of the United States Attorney that are
2 The defendant's motion emp
📷 Images in this document (239 detected; 6 largest described)
AI-generated factual descriptions of embedded images (llava:13b). These are searchable across the corpus.
[Image 1] The image shows a page from a legal document, which appears to be a court ruling or a legal brief. The text is black on a white background, and there are several paragraphs with headings and subheadings. The document includes references to legal codes and case law. There are also redacted sections where personal information or sensitive details have been removed, indicated by black rectangles. The
[Image 2] The image shows a page from a legal document or a court case. The text is redacted, which means that certain parts of the document have been blacked out to protect the privacy of individuals or entities mentioned within. The visible text includes references to a "Second Circuit" and a "Supreme Court," suggesting that this document is related to a legal case in the United States. The document appea
[Image 3] The image shows a page from a legal document or a court case. The text is dense and appears to be discussing legal matters, possibly related to multiple counts or charges. There are references to statutes and case law, indicating a formal legal context. The document is structured with numbered paragraphs and citations to legal precedents. The text is too small to read in detail, but it is clear th
[Image 4] The image shows a page from a legal document, which appears to be a court ruling or a section of a legal code. The text is partially obscured by black lines, likely to protect sensitive information. The visible text includes references to "the defendant," "the plaintiff," and "the Government." There is a section titled "C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
[Image 5] The image shows a page from a document, which appears to be a legal or medical form. The form contains text fields with questions and checkboxes for answers. The visible text includes questions such as "A. Do you have any questions?" and "Q. Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" There are also checkboxes for "A. Yes" and "Q. Yes." The form is structured with numbered questions and checkboxes f
[Image 6] The image shows a page from a legal document or a court case transcript. The text is black on a white background, and it appears to be a section of a questionnaire or a series of questions related to a legal case. The questions are numbered and ask for the respondent's knowledge or experience with certain legal matters. The text is too small to read in detail, but it seems to be a formal document