Epstein Secrets

d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); gintosovvsisto, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1999); United. States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the defe

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

9 (1 Ph Cir. 2003); United States'. Garrett 190 F.3d 1220 (11s Cir. 1999); United States'. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999)' United States '- Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States'. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the defen

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004),

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through