Epstein Secrets

ED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

nderlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Fed. R. Crim, P. 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non- litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). ee ug. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying Ru

410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations." S.E.C. v. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 5

e purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlyi

TED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(f) and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d ion, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). Zes, zgr. Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlying

410, "the possibility of self-incrimination would discourage defendants from being completely candid and open during plea negotiations." S.E.C. v. Johnson, 534 F.Supp.2d 63, 66-67 (D.D.C. 2008), quoting United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 683 (D.C.Cir. 1980). See, e.g., United States v. Mezzanatto, 5

e purposes underlying Rule 408 are essentially the same as those underlying Rules 11(0 and 410: "to encourage non-litigious solutions to disputes." Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (11th Cir. 1976). See, e.g., Stockman v. Oakcrest Dental Center, P.C., 480 F.3d 791, 805 (6th Cir. 2007)("the purpose underlyi