Epstein Secrets

earing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that office, and Villafana’s last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney’s Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one from the USAO provide

ng the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided dial victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Cliief Reiter to assist.” On Saturday, June 28,2008, VillafanajemailedSloman to inform him tliat PBPD Cliief Reiter “is going to notify victims about the plea.” Sl

s matter has taken and consider if good and sufficient reason exists to require your disqualification from the prosecution of these cases. Sincerely, Michael S. Reiter Chief of Police MSR:nt 345 Small County Road 07/26/17 Palm Beach. Florida 334X0-4443 •- (561) H3X-54604 Fax (561) X15-4700 ■www.parmbeachpolicexoin

aph it says however, I 5 expressed that was only my opinion and that the 6 final approval would come from the Chiefof Police; 7 She explained to have ChiefReiter call Barry 8 Kriseher about the deal. Do you see that? 9 A I do. 10 Q Did Officer Recarey talk to you about the 11 deal? 12 A There were so many pote

o dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a defe

emo, supra note 2, at 15. 163 Iq 164 See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 339 (1979). HOU

stead, the courts simply cited to language from a Second Circuit decision that stated that the CVRA does not give

bstantive discussion of whether CVRA rights apply in criminal cases before the filing of charges. Instead, the courts simply cited to language from a Second Circuit decision that stated that the CVRA does not give victims any rights against defendants until those defendants have been convicted'!’—a holding clearl

t grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.”” (quoting In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005))). '3 Of course, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution as part of his sentence until he has been found guilty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664

victims who are entitled to 63 Td. 4 See, e.g., Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330,339 (1979). 6 OL

stead, the courts simply cited to language from a Second Circuit decision that stated that the CVRA does not give

"the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005))). (quoting Jn re 3 Of course, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution as part of his sentence until he has been found guilty. See /

bstantive discussion of whether CVRA rights apply in criminal cases before the filing of charges. Instead, the courts simply cited to language from a Second Circuit decision that stated that the CVRA does not give victims any rights against defendants until those defendants have been convicted !!* - a holding cle

20. 2896538. Page12 of 17 12 K7N9GIUD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Joe Recarey and Michael Reiter together with a letter of production from Ms. McCawley. Unseal in full. 248. Reply memorandum of law in support of the motion. We're going to awai

2 23 24 25 THE COURT: Joe Recarey and Michael Reiter together with a letter of production from Ms. Mc

the caveat. 10 173. Ms. McCawley's declaration in support. Unseal 11 173-5. May 18, 2016 deposition transcript of Doe 162. 12 Pages released by the Second Circuit, of course, will remain 13 sealed -- will remain unsealed. Let me say it again. The 14 pages unsealed by the Second Circuit, of course, remain 1

0/2020,2913550,Page62of74 12 K7N9GIUD 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Joe Recarey and Michael Reiter together with a letter of production from Ms. McCawley. Unseal in full. 248. Reply memorandum of law in support of the motion. We're going to awai

2 23 24 25 THE COURT: Joe Recarey and Michael Reiter together with a letter of production from Ms. Mc

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD M

ngle touchstone" determines whether two allegedly distinct conspiracies "'appear in fact and in law the same." Id. at 668 (quoting United States v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, "the Korfant list is not exhaustive, and every case must be assessed on its own terms . . . based on t

assessed on its own terms . . . based on the entire record." United States v. Maslin, 356 F.3d 191, 196 (2d Cir. 2004). In assessing the evidence, the Second Circuit applies a burden-shifting framework. The defendant carries the initial burden of making a non-frivolous showing that the two counts in fact charge

eers to go after Epstein: Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter and Detective Joseph Recarey. For Reiter, busine

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO