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

has a duty to produce "not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key government witness." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). As a general rule, "Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure o

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

has a duty to produce "not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key government witness." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). As a general rule, "Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure o

Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indic

ierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). The sex trafficking charges are theref

y meet its disclosure obligations so that the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and wi

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 EFTA00029542 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 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

has a duty to produce "not only exculpatory material, but also information that could be used to impeach a key government witness." United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). As a general rule, "Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure o

this congressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of t

(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 --