Epstein Secrets

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

counsel and sought a brief adjournment to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. See A.77 (Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz, dated Sept. 7, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SORA

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.)

counsel and sought a brief adjournment to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. See A.77 (Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz, dated Sept. 9, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SOR

the Sex Crimes Unit rather than the more junior Assistant District Attorney originally assigned to the matter -- advised the Court that based upon the People's investigation and interaction with Florida authorities, the Board materials could not be relied upon in full and therefore did not support a Level

ounsel and sought a brief adjournment to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. See A.77 (Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz, dated Sept. 9, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SORA

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.83, A.89-A.90