Epstein Secrets

ng the government from disclosing their names in the plea agreement, and requested temporary stay of any adverse decision pending appeal. Holdings: The District Court, John D. Bates, J., held that: (1) disclosure of employees names did not violate rule prohibiting disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand

es did not violate United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) directive; and (4) temporary stay pending appeal was not warranted. Ordered accordingly. West Headnotes Ill Injunction 212 9 212 Injunction 212I Nature and Grounds in General 2 I 2I(B) Grounds of Relief 212k9 k. Nature and Existence of Right Requir

No. 3-89-293-H. Jan. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify b

mise not to prosecute defendant, even though defendant was acquitted on drug charges arising out of incident in question. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes Criminal Law 110 *C=.42.5(3) 110 Criminal Law 11011 Defenses in General I 10k42 Immunity to One Furnishing Inform- ation or Evidence I 1 0k42.5

tentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. De- fendants other than the abuser moved for summary judgment. Holdings: The District Court, Caputo, J., held that: (1) diocesan defendants did not aid and abet in federal CAVRA violation; (2) court had supplemental jurisdiction over st

in Medicine Bow National Forest where alien was allegedly subjected to statutory rape and sexual assault were on federally owned land. Affirmed. West Headnotes DI Federal Courts O=776 170Bk776 Most Cited Cases Court of Appeals reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the s

state grand jury records as pan of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcara, J., held that federal grand jury was entitled to' transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police office

a privilege, but (2) Florida statute imposing secrecy on grand jury does not create evidentiary privilege. Affirmed in part and dismissed in pan. West Headnotes [1] Criminal Law C=1023(3) 110k1023(3) Grand jury proceeding is not a "civil action" for purposes of statute permitting interlocutory appeals in

tate grand jury records as part of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcara, J.. held that federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police office

a privilege, but (2) Florida statute imposing secrecy on grand jury does not create evidentiary privilege. Affirmed in pan and dismissed in part. West Headnotes Ill Criminal Law €1023(3) 110k1023(3) Grand jury proceeding is not a 'civil action" for purposes of statute permitting interlocutory appeals in