Epstein Secrets

f time that has passed, and the widely reported nature ofthis miscarriage ofjustice, there is no additional need for maintaining secrecy. See U.S. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150,.234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand juty’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). 112. Co

ndment right to report information informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So

(“Where a speaker exists . . . the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”), Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and

of his co-conspirators, and the identities of the victims have already been exposed, the need for grand jury secrecy is no more. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand jury’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). WHEREFO

) (“Where a speaker exists ... the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”); Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers and

of his co-conspirators, and the identities of the victims have already been exposed, the need for grand jury secrecy is no more. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234 (1940) (“[A]fter the grand jury’s functions are ended, disclosure is wholly proper where the ends ofjustice require it.”). WHEREFO

(“Where a speaker exists . . . the protection afforded [by the First Amendment] is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.”); Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1283 n. 12 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment offers protection to both speakers an