Epstein Secrets

Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFTA00583454 i

nors have already fully addressed this issue, including this Court's reasoning, in their Motion at . As they pointed out there, in United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendant pled guilty to federal charges pursuant to his plea agreement, not to state charges as here, renderin

motion to dismiss Epstein's interlocutory appeal, explaining that this Court lacked 6 EFTA00209513 jurisdiction in light of Mohawk Industries'. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On June 26, 2013, Epstein sought a stay of the district court pending appeal. DE 193. Two days later, the victims opposed the

. . . which are inadmissible in proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410." DE 188 at 5 (emphasis added) (citing United States' Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5th Cir. 1990) (statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule 410), ce

matic example of when interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Ci

a guilty plea . . . .' which are inadmissible in proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410." (DE 188 at 5) (citing United States' Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5th Cir. 1990) (statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule 410), ce

Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 Ind. App. 248,

. 2012) 24, 25 *United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) 6, 14, 28, 53 United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) 20 United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1039 (1991) 26 United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356 (5th Cir. 1978) 24 vii EFTA0020

Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFTA00583780 i

rs have already fully addressed this issue, including this Court's reasoning, in their Motion at 6-9. As they pointed out there, in United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendant pled guilty to federal charges pursuant to his plea agreement, not to state charges as here, renderin