Epstein Secrets

cisions as well. (II Due process requires the govern- ment to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes. Ste Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S.Ct. 2643, 81 L.Ed.2t1 437 (1984) (plea agreement); Santobetto v. New York, 404 (the date of the immunity agreement). or any

alto Shapiro United States, 335 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 6, 1385, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) (following rule of construction of Mike). More recently, in Kastigar, the Court up- held the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 6002 on the ground that use immunity "is coextensive with the scope of the privi- lege again

certain charges pending in Alabama. Be cause it disputed the very existence of a grant of immunity, the government object- ed to the holding of a Kastigar hearing as unwarranted. Faced with this disputed claim of an un- written grant of immunity, the magistrate did not hold a traditional Kastigar hea

th Circuit has ruled that there is a "bright line rule" that courts should not offer any comments on plea negotiations. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778, 783 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Tobin, 676 F.3d 15 EFTA00799620 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLED Docke

ee Ex. A. I had several oral and written communications with Mr. Eisenberg asking him if Jane Doe 2 would appear under the protection of a standard Kastigar letter, but he told me that Jane Doe 2 would only appear if statutory immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 was received. For example, in my letter

Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd, Chicago, Illi- nois, for Appellant. Chad McGowan, S. Randall Hood, McGowan, Hood, Felder & Johnson, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Randall M. Eason, Bagnell & Eason, L.L.C., Lancaster, South Carolina, for Ap- pellees. Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and

itness' invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the immu- nity granted must be as broad as the privi- lege. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1859. Due to the cumbersome requirements of obtaining properly authorized statutory im- munity, U.S. Attorneys often

ered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant.

imony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. =, you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her

'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES CASE NO: 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson EXHIBIT B EFTA00185377 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 6 FO.302 (Rev. 10-64$) FEDERAL BUREAU

imony solely as, a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with.the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her