Epstein Secrets

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones

le plea negotiations is dramatically changed up6n the return of an indictmeht. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001479 EFTA00184665 Case 9:08-cv-807

012635 TAB 32 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012636 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 20069 " JANE DOE NO. 1, by and through JANE DOE’s FATHER as parent and natural guardian, and JANE DOR’s FATHER, and . . JANE DOE’s STEPMOTHER, individually, ciV-MA RRA Plaintiffs, MAGISTRATE JUDGH

ible plea negotiations is dramatically changed upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. Please let us know your client’s decision by no later than August 1

.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as “Jane Doe 2.” iii Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work release program, and the Sheriff approved his a

e plea negotiations is drnmatically changed upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does ttot intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case in favor of state prosecution. 58 Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence esta