Epstein Secrets

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

P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the court

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

P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the court

ee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with the Supreme Court's teaching in Jaffee than is MTSG. In Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dept of Transportation, 452 Fed. Appx. 934, 937 (11th Cir. 2012), this Court appeared

nd Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. DE188:8-9. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts und

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

. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they leave that function to the courts unde

ook to the specific statute of limitations covering such crimes. See Edwards' ShaIola, 64 F.3d 601, 605 (11th Cir. 1995) ("[I]t appears contrary to the Supreme Court's directives .. . to apply a statute [of limitations] of general applicability when there are other more relevant statutory provisions."). In 18 U.S.C

DE 290 at 2), I4 EFTA00188655 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 15 of 20 the Government points out that the Rules of Criminal Procedure lack a provision for adding new parties. Thus, the Government concludes, that no parties can be added here. Id. The Government's hyper-technical ar