Epstein Secrets

in and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States.. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock'. Unite

personal assistant, Lesley Groff, against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida investigating Epstein's sex offenses. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 49, 58. The fact that Epstein warned his assistant against turni

n and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. Unit

against Epstein, they asserted their rights "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred" — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But ev

of-discretion standard, under which we will reverse only if "we find that the district court has made a clear error of judgment...." United States. Frazier 387 F.3d 1244. 1259(11th Cir.2004) (en bane). Moreover, a district court's unjustified reliance on any one Section 3553(a) factor may be a symptom

gent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and charges as follows: COUNT ONE 1. From in or about December 2004 to in or about March 2008, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael," CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie," a/k/a "Kate," TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," and TAN

The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors’ promises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App. 1997), as consideration for the defendant’s guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in open court that the gove

nguage proposed by Villafaña, providing that the plea agreement “resolves the federal criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement,” but also re-inserted th