Epstein Secrets

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

l be confidential, and this document shall not be made available for public inspection. To be atgued b DEBORAH I MORSE Petu Pork i§uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dc.fendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); People v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(`While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratu

all be confidential, and this document shall not be made available for public inspection. To be argued DEBORAH L MORSE Petu Pork i§uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dcfendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR.

f law were sufficient where thay were "clear, supported by the record, and sufficiently detailed to permit intelligent appellate review"); people v. Belzer, 84 A.D.3d 905, 906 (2d Dept. 2011)(While a SORA determination should be supported by findings of fact, there is no need for a court to make gratui

l be confidential, and this document shall not be made available for public inspection. To be argued by DEBORAH L. MORSE POD Pork 6uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant-Appellant BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR.