Epstein Secrets

— has proven effective in meeting those goals in many prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as Bernie Madoff, Marc Dreier and David Brooks. To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required without resort to this measure.

es v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL 2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denie

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

es v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL 2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denie

— has proven effective in meeting those goals in many prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as Bernie Madoff, Marc Dreier and David Brooks. To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required without resort to this measure.

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

es v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL 2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denie

— has proven effective in meeting those goals in many prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as Bernie Madoff, Marc Dreier and David Brooks. To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required without resort to this measure.

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

es v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL 2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denie

— has proven effective in meeting those goals in many prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as Bernie Madoff, Marc Dreier and David Brooks. To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required without resort to this measure.

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

one, talk about extraordinary risks of flight and extraordinary danger and to diminish the persuasiveness of the set of combination of conditions. Madoff was released on bail. He surrendered. Dryer called the colossal fraud by Judge Rakoff -- he surrendered and went to jail. Mr. Skilling from the Enr

nd every opportunity to consult with that counsel while detained and while detained here. I'm not specifically familiar with the conditions of Mr. Zarrab's detention, but my general understanding is that there were concessions made with respect to his ability to review documents and have space. Thos

ly a challenging case. It's a significant case. This Court has significant experience with precisely that type of case with a detained defendant in Zarrab. In that. case, I think the Court saw -- and the country and the world saw -- that it is eminently possible for a defendant to have excellent, exce

one, talk about extraordinary risks of flight and extraordinary danger and to diminish the persuasiveness of the set of combination of conditions. Madoff was released on bail. He surrendered. Dryer called the colossal fraud by Judge Rakoff -- he surrendered and went to jail. Mr. Skilling from the Enr

nd every opportunity to consult with that counsel while detained and while detained here. I'm not specifically familiar with the conditions of Mr. Zarrab's detention, but my general understanding is that there were concessions made with respect to his ability to review documents and have space. Thos

ly a challenging case. It's a significant case. This Court has significant experience with precisely that type of case with a detained defendant in Zarrab. In that. case, I think the Court saw -- and the country and the world saw -- that it is eminently possible for a defendant to have excellent, exce