Epstein Secrets

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00020263 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

ware of its Brady obligations and that it has complied and will continue to comply with them. And because the witness statements are covered by the Jencks Act, the Court cannot compel production of such statements under the terms of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. Next, the G

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00022093 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

ware of its Brady obligations and that it has complied and will continue to comply with them. And because the witness statements are covered by the Jencks Act, the Court cannot compel production of such statements under the terms of the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Coppa, 267 F.3d at 145. Next, the G

or to trial."' (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Barrera, 950 F. Supp. 2d 461, 478-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying motion for bill of particulars as to identities of unnamed victims of alleged murder conspiracy); United States v. Castro, No. 08 Cr

ernment's letter dated October 28, 2020, with regard to your many requests for information that fall within the scope of the Government's Giglio and Jencks Act obligations, we intend to produce all such material in advance of trial and remain available to confer generally regarding a mutual schedule fo

e let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss the foregoing. Very truly yours, AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: s/ / / Assistant United States Attorneys 4 EFTA00023913

might aid in impeaching government witnesses at trial, "the legislative history expresses a much greater concern with limiting the application of the Jencks decision so that it would not hamper the workings of law enforcement by forcing wholesale disclosure of government materials and files." 33° The Jen

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --

but not limited to communications with the United States Attorney's Offices for the Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. EFTA00016140 --- PAGE BREAK --- August 1, 2019 Page 6 Steptoe MOON & JOHNSON LIP 27. Relating to any investigation undertaken by the

se us promptly whether the government will be producing Brady material immediately even if it is contained in what might otherwise be considered as Jencks material, or whether you take the position that you arc not obligated to produce such material at this time. EFTA00016145 --- PAGE BREAK --- Aug

ior to trial." (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Barrera, 950 F. Supp. 2d 461, 478-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying motion for bill of particulars as to identities of unnamed victims of alleged murder conspiracy); United States v. Castro, No. 08 Cr

ernment's letter dated October 28, 2020, with regard to your many requests for information that fall within the scope of the Government's Giglio and Jencks Act obligations, we intend to produce all such material in advance of trial and remain available to confer generally regarding a mutual schedule fo