Epstein Secrets

pstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Motion to Intervene (DE 78) at 4-6. Perhaps recognizing the strength of the victims' response, the defense attorne

0 applies in federal proceedings to statements made in connection with prior state pleas"); see also United States v. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting the admission of a guilty plea from state court in a federal proceeding). 2 Because Epstein's lawyers are claiming that the correspond

Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No.

ed guilty to state charges based on the same conduct and has not withdrawn those pleas. See, e.g., United States I. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (admitting guilty plea from state court in federal pro- ceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act al

d on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 11 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Background Defendant Epstein has filed a boilerplate motion to strike Jane Doe's trial date — and numerous other consolidated cases involving similar allegations of his sexual abuse of minors - for an unspecified period of time,

allis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1409 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir.1992); United Stales v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352, 354 (8th Cir.1986). F1418. United States v. Tilley, 964 F.2d 66, 70 (Id Cir.1992) FN19. Dallis, 28 F.3d at 1409; Tilley, 964 F.2d at 70; United States v. Crawford,