Epstein Secrets

ents about Epstein who is party to, and possible witness in, this case, rendering it improper opinion testimony about the credibility of a witness. Alvarado v. State, 521 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the court was faced with a similar issue, and

79. Documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's investments. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 80. Letter from Chief Michael Reiter to Barry Krischler. 81. List of planes owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Also objected to as Improper/Confidential financial information. 82. Letter fro

rbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 108. Reiter letter to ICrisher dated 5-1-06. 109. Jail receipts of Jeffrey Epstein. 110. Police Report dated 11-28-04. 1 1 1. Compulsory Medial Examination

C rarguaun, a Grijakia. r5 Keatins, M Matthews. A NoeLen, Y Porlaza, A Reyes. d 5 Rodriguez, C Shafer. s S Tones. C West, rs SICK LEAVE Alvarado. A Hope, 0 Rodriguez. .1 %nib, S Leatham. k S Samuel, I. Cala, k S Madison, C Solomon. $ Findlay. g S Noel, T Tearnoh, g $ ANNUAL LEAVE

SSION OF A CELLPHONE. SIS Comments: Assig. Inmate Name Reg. No Unit IA Data Status PRFDS DST Admitting Officer A OTR 205.1231AD DESILVA, MICHAEL A 55381-066 5S 08-07-2019 AO DURANT Reason: PENDING SIS INVVESTIGATION Psvcholoav Services Comments: CARE I-MH: No mental health concerns Un

emo, supra note 2, at 15. 163 Iq 164 See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (1979). HOU

etween misdemeanor and 65 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d\(3) (2012)). °° Id. 67 Td. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 1.2(g), at 11 (Sth ed. 2009) (emphasis added). © OLC CVRA Righ

, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). 7 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 n.15 (citing Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d 363, 366 n.6 (D.C.

victims who are entitled to 63 Td. 4 See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330,339 (1979). 6 OL

442 U.S. 330,339 (1979). 6 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 3771(d)G) (2012)). 66 Td. 67 Id. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 1.2(g), at 11 (5th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). 6° OLC CVRA Rig

on also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that "the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warrant. The cri