EFTA00097359Set 9
17p4,078w
United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1988) 6
United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) 3
United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d ... appropriate 'where ... the false
declarations concern the substantive offenses.'" Id. (citing United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d
784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984)). But it is wrong on both the facts ... underlying crime and the crime is
temporally related to the false statement. The Potamitis case that the government relies upon
primarily for this proposition is a good example. In that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00097359.pdf
EFTA00097312Set 9
17p4,078w
United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1988) 6
United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) 3
United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d ... appropriate 'where ... the false
declarations concern the substantive offenses.'" Id. (citing United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d
784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984)). But it is wrong on both the facts ... underlying crime and the crime is
temporally related to the false statement. The Potamitis case that the government relies upon
primarily for this proposition is a good example. In that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00097312.pdf
EFTA00091875Set 9
2008-01-1619p4,850w
July 28, 2009) 5, 9
United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) 4, 8
United States v. Ramos, No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912
(S.D.N.Y ... with perjury counts" where the false declarations "concern the
substantive offenses," United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984), joinder is not
appropriate when the perjury or false ... with underlying
7
EFTA00091885
substantive crimes when the false declarations "concern the substantive offenses." Potamitis,
739 F.2d at 791. Such cases typically involve situations where the defendant was aware that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00091875.pdf