Birney
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00010405.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a Defendant's claim of prejudice due to a delay in prosecution. The prosecution asserts that the Defendant has failed to meet the high legal standard for proving prejudice, citing case law. The Defendant's claims are based on the loss of documentary evidence (flight, financial, phone, and property records related to Epstein) and the deaths of four potential witnesses (architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham).
DOJ-OGR-00009606.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by the government in a criminal case, dated February 25, 2022. The government argues against a defendant's motion, asserting that the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay are speculative and unsupported by evidence. The government specifically refutes the defendant's argument that lost flight manifests would have been helpful to the defense, citing legal precedents to argue that the defendant has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving actual prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00009601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the unavailability of certain witnesses (Pinto, Salhi, Markham, and Fontanilla). The author cites multiple legal precedents, including States v. Long and United States v. Scala, to assert that the defendant's claims are speculative and lack the definite proof of actual prejudice required by law to dismiss an indictment or vacate a conviction. The document concludes that the defense's unsworn assertions about what these witnesses might have testified to are insufficient legal grounds for their motion.
DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg
This legal document outlines the Second Circuit's stringent standard for pre-indictment delay, which requires a defendant to prove both improper government purpose and serious, actual prejudice to their defense. It cites numerous legal precedents to emphasize the heavy burden on the defendant and to define substantial prejudice, noting that the mere loss of evidence or witnesses is typically insufficient. The document establishes that claims of pre-indictment delay are rarely successful.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity