Epstein Secrets

is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of reoffending, and indeed, justice demands that his SO

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of reoffending, and indeed, justice demands that his SO

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey- Mr. Epstein presents a negligible risk of reoffending, and indeed, justice demands that h

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey- Mr. Epstein presents a negligible risk

der SORA was unsupportable under the legally mandated "clear and convincing evidence" standard. See Correction Law §§ 168.1(2), 168- n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421 (2008). B. The District Attorney's Office Appropriately Applied the Governing Legal Standard, As Set Forth by SORA and Its Gu

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim's statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dub

ar and convincing evidence" standard, as the People rightfully represented at the SORA hearing. See Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 421 (2008). 12 EFTA00798132 A. The People Rejected the Board Recommendation As Unreliable Following Several Months of Investig

y proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. CITE. The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio

der SORA was unsupportable under the legally mandated "clear and convincing evidence" standard. See Correction Law §§ 168- k(2), 168-n(2); People v. Johnson, 11 3d 416, 421 (2008). B. The District Attorney's Office Appropriately Applied the Governing Legal Standard, As Set Forth by SORA and Its Guide

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 IMI.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio