Epstein Secrets

vent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should [the defendant] be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The Indictment contains a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offenses charged, and it des

or to trial."' (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Barrera, 950 F. Supp. 2d 461, 478-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying motion for bill of particulars as to identities of unnamed victims of alleged murder conspiracy); United States v. Castro, No. 08 Cr

e let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss the foregoing. Very truly yours, AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: s/ / / Assistant United States Attorneys 4 EFTA00023913

. See also United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 237 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Davidoff 845 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Crim

but not limited to communications with the United States Attorney's Offices for the Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. EFTA00016140 --- PAGE BREAK --- August 1, 2019 Page 6 Steptoe MOON & JOHNSON LIP 27. Relating to any investigation undertaken by the

vent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should [the defendant] be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The Indictment contains a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offenses charged, and it des

ior to trial." (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Barrera, 950 F. Supp. 2d 461, 478-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (denying motion for bill of particulars as to identities of unnamed victims of alleged murder conspiracy); United States v. Castro, No. 08 Cr

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00020263 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

rial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The S1 superseding indictment sets out the elements of each charged crime and the facts supporting each element.

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00022093 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

rial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The S1 superseding indictment sets out the elements of each charged crime and the facts supporting each element.

Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indic

ierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). The sex trafficking charges are theref

rial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). "The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supplement the allegations in the indictment when necessary to (1) en

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00029542 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

rial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). The SI superseding indictment sets out the elements of each charged crime and the facts supporting each element.