Epstein Secrets

o victims."). Ms. was introduced by her counsel, and stated that she was 16 years old when she "had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New York." 7/15/19 Tr. at 72. said that Mr. Epstein "flew [her] to New Mexico" and was "inappropriate" with her. a She was reluctant to go into details abou

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

court. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3142. EFTA00066193 U.S. v. EPSTEIN Cite u423 F.Supp.34 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) Pro Hac Vice, United States Attorney's Office, New York, NY, Gloria Rachel Allred, Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Government. James L. Brochin, Michael Campion Miller, Michael Gerard S

smit Information About a Mi- nor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3XE). (121 The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, EFTA00066200 316 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger t

Ms. -was introduced by her counsel, David Boies, and stated that she was 16 years old when she "had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New York." 7/15/19 Tr. at 72. Ms. Farmer said that Mr. Epstein "flew [her) to New Mexico" and was "inappropriate" with her. Id. She was reluctant to go into

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

o victims."). Ms. was introduced by her counsel, and stated that she was 16 years old when she "had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New York." 7/15/19 Tr. at 72. Ms.Maid that Mr. Epstein "flew [her] to New Mexico" and was "inappropriate" with her. Id. She was reluctant to go into details

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

tion of the NPA and his state sentence, was required to register as a sex offender in the locations of his residences. He is currently registered ' New York's age of consent was 17 at the time of the alleged conduct and remains so today. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05. 2 EFTA00076069 Case 1:19-cr-00490-RM

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

court. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3142. EFTA00076817 U.S. v. EPSTEIN Cite u423 F.Supp.34 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) Pro Hac Vice, United States Attorney's Office, New York, NY, Gloria Rachel Allred, Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Government. James L. Brochin, Michael Campion Miller, Michael Gerard S

smit Information About a Mi- nor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3XE). (121 The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, EFTA00076824 316 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger t

benefits to victims."). Ms, was introduced by her counsel, and stated that she was when she "had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New York." 7/15/19 Tr. at 72. Ms.Msaid that Mr. Epstein "flew [her] tol arid was "inappropriate" with her. a She was reluctant to go into details about her

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

tion of the NPA and his state sentence, was required to register as a sex offender in the locations of his residences. He is currently registered ' New York's age of consent was 17 at the time of the alleged conduct and remains so today. See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05. 2 EFTA00095872 Case 1:19-cr-00490-RM

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

8 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Count 1 carries

hould consider those legislative findings among the other factors to be weighed in deciding whether a defendant should be detained. United States'. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted) (discussing 'A grand jury indic nt provides the probable cause required by the sta