Epstein Secrets

represented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (a) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. I. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS' § 3771(a)(2) RIGHT TO REASONABLE, ACCURATE, AND TIMELY NOTICE Supreme Court has repeatedly emphas

t proceedings. Indeed, the only trial court other than a federal district court that has been included within the scope of the CVRA's provisions is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(3). Moreover, under petitioners' argument, state court rulings would be subjected to review by federal courts. See, e.g.,

presented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (Id.) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a

t proceedings. Indeed, the only trial court other than a federal district court that has been included within the scope of the CVRA's provisions is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(3). Moreover, under petitioners' argument, state court rulings would be subjected to review by federal courts. See. e.g.,

epresented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (ti) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a

t proceedings. Indeed, the only trial court other than a federal district court that has been included within the scope of the CVRA's provisions is the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(3). Moreover, under petitioners' argument, state court rulings would be subjected to review by federal courts. See. e.g.,