Epstein Secrets

go all remote next week as infection rates in children are now outpacing those of adults in many areas of the country." The New York Times (11/11, Armstrong, Tully, 18.61M) reports that in Newark "over the last four days, there have been 842 new reported infections, and 19 percent of people tested over

on how and when federal prosecutors investigate certain election-fraud cases before the results are certified." When Barr first proposed the move, "Criminal Division officials - including political leadership - had pushed back vigorously and thought they had dissuaded the attorney general from taking such a step.

analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors a

ian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33132 FAX Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003726 EFTA00086396 pirm—Au —evict U.S. Department et JliSrICC Criminal Division WiedlOPUM.PIAWARIIIMOORIrel The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta . United States Attorney , {r.; • • west Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attention:

go all remote next week as infection rates in children are now outpacing those of adults in many areas of the country." The New York Times (11/11, Armstrong, Tully, 18.61M) reports that in Newark "over the last four days, there have been 842 new reported infections, and 19 percent of people tested over

on how and when federal prosecutors investigate certain election-fraud cases before the results are certified." When Barr first proposed the move, "Criminal Division officials - including political leadership - had pushed back vigorously and thought they had dissuaded the attorney general from taking such a step.

lose the identity of its witnesses before trial. However, the basis for such grants of authority now seems defunct. For instance, in United States v. Armstrong, the Ninth Circuit recognized no authority exists in the federal rules for requiring the government to disclose the names of its witnesses. 74 Still,

disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for court authority in the absence of control

rime victims rights representative. See CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra note 66, at 1 (noting that Deborah Rhodes, Counselor to the Asst. Atty. Gen. of the Criminal Division, served on the subcommittee drafting this language). 416 At another point in its memorandum, the CVRA Subcommittee refers to /8 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6),

97 U.S. 358, 364 (1970) (holding that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause). ° United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456-71 (1996) (examining selective prosecution claim based on racial bias); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)

to be particularly successful. '°? The federal government seems to share that view. The Justice Department created a Public Integrity Section within the Criminal Division in 1976, !>4 and in the four decades since, federal prosecutors have [*893] aggressively prosecuted conduct of state and local officials that it det