Epstein Secrets

"case" as "a question contested before a court of justice"). This general understanding is equally applicable to criminal proceedings. In Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a criminal "case" — as distinct from an investigation — "at the very least requires the initiation

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

"case" as "a question contested before a court of justice"). This general understanding is equally applicable to criminal proceedings. In Chavez v. Martinez , 538 U.S. 760 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a criminal "case" — as distinct from an investigation — "at the very least requires the initiati

to its public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison , 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

"case" as "a question contested before a court of justice"). This general understanding is equally applicable to criminal proceedings. In Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a criminal "case" — as distinct from an investigation — "at the very least requires the initiation

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

re "merely a statement of assertion or concession made for some independent purpose," and may be controverted or explained by the party who made it. Martinez v. Bally's Louisiana, Inc., 244 F.3d 474, 476-77 (V' Cir. 2001), citing McNamara v. Miller, 269 F.2d 511, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1959). In contrast, a judi

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal