Epstein Secrets

pstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether or not he seeks to exclude anything under this exhibit identification. 106. Pleadings of Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. US case. 107. Jeffrey Epstein 5th Amendment Speech. This is so overbroad that Epstein cannot possibly make a determination as to whether o

should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improp

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that were brought by Edward's clients -- E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe -- were relevant. So I just wanted, for the record, to be definitive, in that, we are not trying the other claims that may have been represented

should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improp

ffort to keep this trial from turning into a circus, has already ruled that Edwards is limited at trial to discussing his three clients' (EW, LM and Jane Doe) claims. Specifically, the Court's January 16, 2018, Order provides: [T]he parties may speak generally about the number of claims that Epstein was

ce should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandra 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Ha. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Ha. 1949)); see also Agrofollajes, SA v. El Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So. 3d 976 (Ha. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improperly beco

rant of Jeffrey Epstein's home 27. Yearbooks of Jane Doe 28. 2002 Royal Palm Beach High School Year Book

review and evaluate same prior to trial; causing unfair prejudice. Escutia v. Greenleaf Products, Inc., 886 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DU Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Nos. 3D07- 2322, 3D07-2318, 3D07-1036, 2009 WL 4828975, at *16 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 16, 2009) (stating "F