Epstein Secrets

roceedings, based upon the Supreme Court's recognition of a common law right of access to inspect and copy judicial records. 142 F.3d at 504, citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). The appellate court also observed that this common law right was not absolute: Although some

uthern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. on au er a e, on a Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Universit of Utah Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 6 EFTA00204875

ivileges and from the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The transparent purpose behind Epstein'

ds Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 26 EFTA00205753 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 1

her or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion") (footnote omitted), and Nixon v. United States , 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)(Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case).

ida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Petitioners a The emergency was based upon petitioners' belief that Jeffrey Epstein was engaged in plea ne

ad committed any federal crimes, and entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which was an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. Nixon v. United States, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)("the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a c

North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys

ad committed any federal crimes, and entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which was an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. Nixon v. United States , 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)("the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a c

urt, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC Hollywood, Florida 33020 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 Since no criminal case was pending, the Clerk's Office filed the Eme

t to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner Commtans, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,599 (1978). The panel lacks the context and familiarity with the facts, the parties and the non-parties to a

ith fm. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. v. Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Paul Cassell address. phone number and e-mail) S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 150 E. 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 383 S. University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 303.831.7364; [email protected]

rely in his discretion") (footnote omitted), and Nixon I. United States , 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)(Execu

t, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. , Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 (801) 585-5202 (phone) (801) 581-6897 (fax) raccelligilaw.utah

ad committed any federal crimes, and entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which was an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. Nixon v. United States, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)("the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a c

Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Fax: E-mail: Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 54 EFTA00078888

ad committed any federal crimes, and entered into the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which was an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion. Nixon' United States, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (I 974)("the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a ca

301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: [email protected] and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: [email protected]

o the Federal Rules o Criminal Procedure 2007 Reporter 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861 * Length: 59852 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2002-07. Thanks to Sara Sun Beale, Doug Beloof, Doug Berman, Russell

e proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural standards to victim-related subpoenas,