Epstein Secrets

that "the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" in its Jencks Act production. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial discl

y gave a straightforward account of relevant background information based on [the expert's] own knowledge and experience" (quoting United States v. Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017)); United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that expert testimony on grooming wa

ed that, when defense counsel elected to put his investigator on the witness stand at trial, he must turn over the investigator's report pursuant to Jencks, but defense counsel can redact the report to only disclose that portion of the report that relates to the investigator's testimony. 7 EFTA006001

736-KAM Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'27:2011 Page 12 of 12 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison St

ed that, when defense counsel elected to put his investigator on the witness stand at trial, he must turn over the investigator's report pursuant to Jencks, but defense counsel can redact the report to only disclose that portion of the report that relates to the investigator's testimony. 7 EFTA006570

736-KAM Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'27:2011 Page 12 of 12 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison St

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the pr

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare forcross- examination. These representations are sufficien

there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the pr

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the pr

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the pr

and the Jencks Act and that it will provide the required information to the defendants in accordance with its responsibilities under Giglio and the Jencks Act sufficiently in advance of each witness's testimony to allow adequate time to prepare for cross- examination. These representations are sufficie

there was no cause to consider whether the same "community" was relevant to separate challenges to the grand and petit juries. See United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329, 334-35 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); United States v. Kenny, 883 F. Supp. 869, 874-75 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). As such, neither case supports the pr

ts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF A. MARIE VILLAPAR4 I. 1, A. Marie Villafafta, do hereby declare that I am currently emp

ts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

ocument 35-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 22, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing Supplementa