Epstein Secrets

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

t the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel." Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485 (2010) (citation omitted). This includes the "critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of `the advantages a

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

t the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel." Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485 (2010) (citation omitted). This includes the "critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of `the advantages a

ines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department during an investigation "waived the work-product doctrine as against all other adversaries." Id. at 1429. This holding makes sense, because it is ha

o be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining or that protecting plea bargaining opportun