Epstein Secrets

e reasons, the Court should deny the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to discover and use the plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER RULE 501 Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doe 2 are also not entitled to discovery or use of the p

entity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, WILD provided the following information: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. WILD was approached at a party by a female she believoi was named CHARLISE. She described

onths, one week and 3 days. EFTA00178032 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Shawna Lane Rivera .On 05/28/2008 ,Page Epstein offered to pay an extra $100.00 to Rivera if she brought additional girls to him. Epstein asked Rivera to provide a massage to Sarah LNU but the ma

ormation: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with pe

e plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCO

2 F.3d 88, 157 (2d Cir.1998). [45] Nonetheless, not every error- whether alone or in combination with oth- ers-warrants a new trial. Cl Delaware A. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S. 1431z 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ("[T]he Con- stitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one."). A

Maxwell violated and conspired to violate the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein and others to recruit "a person" knowing that the person "had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act

by any means" individuals who were under the age of 18, including Accuser-4, "who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with Jeffrey Epstein." (Id. 127). Both counts are based on the allegations of Accuser-4 and allege conduct that purportedly occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 2001,

A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i

Maxwell violated and conspired to violate the federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein and others to recruit "a person" knowing that the person "had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act

by any means" individuals who were under the age of 18, including Accuser-4, "who were then caused to engage in at least one commercial sex act with Jeffrey Epstein." (Id. 127). Both counts are based on the allegations of Accuser-4 and allege conduct that purportedly occurred "[f]rom at least in or about 2001,

A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P 17(c)(3) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i