Epstein Secrets

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. If 117-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. Decl. ¶ 38, DE 403-

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (Villafaiia Decl. ¶ 38

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (Villafaiia Decl. ¶ 38

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (' Decl. ¶ 38, DE 403

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state cou ecl. ¶ 38, DE 403-19.)