Epstein Secrets

tive powers with respect to a deferred prosecution agreement and held, based on constitutional considerations regarding the powers conferred on the Executive, that the district court could not reject the deferred prosecution agreement in that case based on its disagreement with the Executive's charging de

of criminal charges. See Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Heads of Department Components, U.S. Att'ys re: Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with Corporations (Mar. 7, 2008) at note 2, ava

wers with respect to a deferred prosecution agreement and held, based on constitutional considerations regarding the powers conferred solely on the Executive, that the district court could not reject the deferred prosecution agreement in that case based on its disagreement with the Executive's charging d

al criminal charges. See Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Heads of Department Components, U.S. Att'ys re: Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non—Prosecution Agreements with Corporations 9 EFTA00211551 Case 9:08-c

udicial records and those that may not"). In general, "there is no First Amendment right of access to government processes," including those of the Executive branch. United States v. Gonzales, 50 F.3d 1246, 1260 (10th Cir. 1998). As the District of Columbia Circuit stated in evaluating whether a plea agre

tead it was the norm. See Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dept of Justice, to Heads of Department Components, U.S. Att'ys re: Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non— Prosecution Agreements with Corporations (Mar. 7. 2008) at note 2 avail