Epstein Secrets

Courts tread lightly where prosecutorial discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's ge

ts are [not] competent to undertake" the kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States I. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an a

ative-process privilege that may apply. It not protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the Government has not demonstrated that FBI agent Kuyrkendall provided this information in an attempt to secure legal advice or a legal opinion from the United States Attorney's Office. The correspondence m

made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that In]othing in this chapter shall be construed to im

ts are [not] competent to undertake" the kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an a

ative-process privilege that may apply. It not protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the Government has not demonstrated that FBI agent Kuyrkendall provided this information in an attempt to secure legal advice or a legal opinion from the United States Attorney's Office. The correspondence m

his constitutional responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985); quoting U.S. Const., Art. II § 3; citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 547). This broad discretion rests largely on

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafaiia]. (See DE14, Exs. 1 and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe #1 actually took advantage of the offer of protection when E

ane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2] wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence o

to obtain information from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S, 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, I 5; Ex. S, q 12. Jane Doe No. 2

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence o

o obtain information from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11[6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 15; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 d

made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains `broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that InJothing in this chapter shall be construed to imp

ative-process privilege that may apply. It not protected by the attorney-client privilege, as the Government has not demonstrated that FBI agent Kuyrkendall provided this information in an attempt to secure legal advice or a legal opinion from the United States Attorney's Office. The correspondence m