Epstein Secrets

By Clear and Convincing Evidence. The People began the SORA hearing by advising the Court that their own investigation and communications with the Florida State 20 EFTA00792368 Attorney's Office that handled Appellant's case revealed that the majority of allegations in the Board's recommendation (and in

r assessments of points on the RAI should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the

By Clear and Convincing Evidence. The People began the SORA hearing by advising the Court that their own investigation and communications with the Florida State 20 EFTA00181075 I EFTA00181076 Attorney's Office that handled Appellant's case revealed that the majority of allegations in the Board's recom

assessments of points on the R.Al should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the

By Clear and Convincing Evidence. The People began the SORA hearing by advising the Court that their own investigation and communications with the Florida State 20 EFTA00231567 Attorney's Office that handled Appellant's case revealed that the majority of allegations in the Board's recommendation (and in

r assessments of points on the RAI should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the

By Clear and Convincing Evidence. The People began the SORA hearing by advising the Court that their own investigation and communications with the Florida State 20 EFTA00232687 Attorney's Office that handled Appellant's case revealed that the majority of allegations in the Board's recommendation (and in

r assessments of points on the RAI should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the