Epstein Secrets

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

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 Irdothing in this chapter shall be construed to im

to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") will treat all statements made by your client during the interview as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(0 of the Federal Rules of

nce value, the Government's 42 EFTA00299062 enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan..." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). As such, the decision to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Id. "Few subjects ar

ervices B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the crim

2006-CF-009454-AXXX-MB. In or around November 2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") was investigating whether Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct violated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federa

is constitutional responsibility to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'" United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting Wayte v. Untied 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

ations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Office"). They also falsely allege that Movant, while still employed by the Office engaged in improper conduct relating to Epstein. The Motio