Epstein Secrets

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

§ 169-8(3) 36 Fla. Stat 796.03 1 EFTA00602340 Ha. Stat. 796.07 1 EFTA00602341 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, -against- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant,

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

§ 169-8(3) 36 Fla. Stat 796.03 1 EFTA00792502 Ha. Stat. 796.07 1 EFTA00792503 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, -against- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant,

riginal). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "may" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

w § 169-8(3) 36 Fla. Stat 796.03 1 EFTA00181149 Fla. Stat 796.07 1 EFTA00181150 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, -against- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant,

entencing recommendation."); see also People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc. 2d 319, 322-23, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) (observing "the Legislature did not intend to place upon the criminal courts of this State a burden to act merely as a regulatory body to confirm the determination of the Boar

m EFTA00231540 To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 Xeftr larrrit $upratte Txxurt APPELLATE DIVISION—FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAY P. LEFKOWITZ