Epstein Secrets

evel I Under SORA Will More Than Adequately Protect The People Of New York From Any Negligible Threat Posed By Jeffrey Epstein To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that the intentions of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Jeffrey Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Florida

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

ORA Will More Than Adequately Protect the People of the State of New York from Any Negligible Threat Posed by Jeffrey Epstein To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that intentions of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Jeffrey Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Florida conv

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

evel I Under SORA Will More Than Adequately Protect The People Of New York From Any Negligible Threat Posed By Jeffrey Epstein To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that the intentions of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Flor

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey- Mr. Epstein presents a negligible risk

pellant did not have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf because 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and discussion

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim's statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dub

osition of the Assistant District Attorney charged with representing the State and instead, 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

y proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. CITE. The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio

hts to which he is entitled and which deprivation of those rights their actions occasioned. 2 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 IMI.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio