Epstein Secrets

by DEBORAH L. MORSE POD Pork 6uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant-Appellant BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. District Attorney New York County Attorney for Respondent One Hogan Place New Y

F NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant-Appellant BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRU

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant-Appellant BRIEF FOR RESPOND

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Defendant-Appellant BRIEF FOR RESPONDE

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

iv EFTA00792573 INTRODUCTION In a stunning reversal of the position they espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designati

YWELL Notary Public State of New York No Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires November 15. 2012 /s/ Howard Daniels Case Name: People v. Epstein EFTA00792607

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. REP

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. REPL

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.)

d DEBORAH L MORSE Petu Pork i§uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dcfendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. District Attorney New York County Attorney for Respondent One Hogan Place New

F NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dcfendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYR

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dcfendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPON

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dcfendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPOND

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

INTRODUCTION In a stunning reversal of the position they espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designati

A hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the order of the New York Supreme Co

at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the order of the New York S

at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the order of the New York Su

the Sex Crimes Unit rather than the more junior Assistant District Attorney originally assigned to the matter -- advised the Court that based upon the People's investigation and interaction with Florida authorities, the Board materials could not be relied upon in full and therefore did not support a Level

b DEBORAH I MORSE Petu Pork i§uprente Court Appellate Division - First Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dc.fendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. District Attorney New York County Attorney for Respondent One Hogan Place New

F NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dc.fendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT CY

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dc.fendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPO

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, - against - JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Dc.fendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPON

ase and thus posed a significant risk to the community. The court acted correctly, and certainly well within its discretion, when it concluded that the People's stated concerns did not cast any meaningful doubt on the propriety of the Board's recommendation. D. Nor is defendant persuasive when he contends

INTRODUCTION In a stunning reversal of the position they espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designati

A hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Supreme Co

at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York S

at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Su

mes Unit. See A.89-A.90 (Tr.). At the invitation of the District Attorney's Office, counsel for Appellant followed up that meeting by providing for the People's review additional evidence from the Florida investigation to supplement the relatively limited materials provided by the Board. See A.83, A.89-A.90