Epstein Secrets

was undertaken by the City of Palm Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year-old girl, S. G.,2 from Royal Palm Beach. When S. G. and another girl began arguing at school because the other girl accused S. G. of being a prostitute, one of the school principals interv

citations omitted). ht determining how much weight to accord the presumption after the defendant has come forward to meet his burden of production, the Second Circuit explains: A judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to giv

ed provides the motive for him do so and is another significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987). So too is the strength of the evidence, detailed above and in the Government's Detention Memo. Indeed, that evidence, already robust less th

n to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a def

l 11, 2006, Det Dawson and I traveled to Tallahassee, Florida and met with the victim eft identified Sea W/F, as the person who approached her in Royal Palm Beach while re was home during Spring Break in March 2006. also stated she did not want to pursue the intimidation charges on 4810.6 Swas concerned tha

ly assaulting. Licata, now an adult living near Nashville, recalls her experience with Epstein at his Palm Beach mansion while she was a sophomore at Royal Palm Beach High School. EMILY MICHOT EM/[email protected] Licata is among 36 women who were officially identified by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO