Epstein Secrets

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

ution. The provision confirms that crime victims do not have "the right to dictate government strategy or demand who to prosecute." United States v. Thetford, 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (citing In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005)). But as the Court knows, from the ve

examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." DE 421 at 7 (citing Cox v. Administrator, U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994)). The Government has clearly injected its deliberations into the case, and fairness requires that the Court fi