Epstein Secrets

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00077678 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00077678 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

ubpoena, 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) 149 In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) 139 In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) 136 In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) 284 In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas,

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00039493 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00039493 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

ubpoena, 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) 149 In re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) 139 In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) 136 In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) 284 In re Various Grand Jury Subpoenas,

unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein "would have" testified that the defendant did not engage in th

m Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00103071 2018 respectively,

, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00103071 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony would have been exculpat

in this Indictment have told the USAO-SDNY. In sum, the defendant has not put "specific evidence" before this Court demonstrating that the loss of Detective Recarey's testimony, even if admissible, has caused her actual prejudice. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d at 400. The defendant next contends that had the Government

bpoena, 836 F.2d 1468 (4th Cir. 1988) 149 In re Three Grand Jwy Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 29, 1999, 191 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1999) 139 In Re Three Grand Jury Subpoenas Jan. 5, 1988, 847 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1988) 136 In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283 (2d Cir. 1987) 284 In re Various Grand Amy Subpoenas,