Epstein Secrets

rch 9 that the government was "con- sidering its options" and he has a number of them at his disposal. In the absence of a voluntary ap- pearance, the Department of Jus- tice could invoke the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) with the United Kingdom to request Prince Andrew's testimony under oath in England. Lawyer

jury (indeed, the gravamen of Ber- man's complaint is that the Prince has not made himself available to be a part of the investigation). Second, the Department of Justice press regulations found at Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are clearly focused on trials and protecting the rights of charged defendants, w

ony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direc- tion of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of in- formation obtained independentl

rch 9 that the government was "con- sidering its options" and he has a number of them at his disposal. In the absence of a voluntary ap- pearance, the Department of Jus- tice could invoke the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) with the United Kingdom to request Prince Andrew's testimony under oath in England. Lawyer

jury (indeed, the gravamen of Ber- man's complaint is that the Prince has not made himself available to be a part of the investigation). Second, the Department of Justice press regulations found at Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are clearly focused on trials and protecting the rights of charged defendants, w

ony of witnesses or likely questions; and information that reveals the strategy or direc- tion of a grand jury investigation. See United States v. Skelos, 2 No. 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015). Notably, however, Rule 6(e) does not apply to disclosures of in- formation obtained independentl

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 9 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Si)WaJ. Mono Building One Saint Andrew 's Plaza New York New York 10007 May 4, 2021 B

hey must be shown to be relevant and admissible at the time the subpoena is sought." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) ("[A] criminal subpoena should not be used

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Si!lo J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 October 26,

es will be provided the prospective jurors' names no earlier than November 16, 2021, the day that oral voir dire begins. See, e.g., United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW); United States EFTA00087736 Page 2 v. Kaloyeros, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); United States v. Percoco, et at, 16 Cr. 776 (VEC); cf

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The SihioJ. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 November 18,

ly relevant or admissible." United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Skelos, No. 15 Cr. 317, 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 ("The materials sought under Rule 17 must themselves be admissible at trial; it is not enough that they cont

0: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York June 14, 2007 Email November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting November 30, 2018 Email December 6

167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreet.corn, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00099949 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith y. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. 71eStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00077614 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. 71eStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00039429 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45 Swain v. Alabama, 380

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 9 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The SilWoJ. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 May 4, 2021

hey must be shown to be relevant and admissible at the time the subpoena is sought." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) ("[A] criminal subpoena should not be used