Epstein Secrets

t has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at *17 n. 11 (Senate Debate supports view that contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their inp

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[tjhe ability to

t 2 EFTA00177148 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 plea proceedings. Id., citing United States,. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at •17 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[t]he CVRA, therefore, dots not authorize an unbridled gallop to an

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

t 2 EFTA00230165 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 plea proceedings. 111, citing United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at •17 (B.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[t]he CVRA, therefore, does not authorize an unbridled gallop to an

enfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1344 (D. Utah 2006) (same); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WE 2875220 (E.D.N_Y. 2005) (same). 94 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006). °° CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra note 66, at 1. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSI

in opposition to a plea. The prosecutor refused to convey that information to the court and the trial judge accepted the plea. When the issue reached the Utah Supreme Court, the court concluded that the prosecutor had an ethical obligation as an officer of the court to convey that information to the judge: Prosecutors m

n handedly to both prosecution and the defense. Neither side is required to disclose the address or telephone number of a victim, thus complying with the Supreme Court's instruction that "in the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two- 204 See infra notes 528-539 and ac