Epstein Secrets

959. Decided Nov. 20, 1959. Prosecutions for violations of White Slave Traffic Act. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk, Walter E. Hoff- man, J., entered judgment of conviction as to one defendant on three counts and judgment of conviction as to the other

d- missible only to show a state of mind, the exclusionary hearsay rule is quite ir- relevant. McCormick, Evidence, § 228, at pp. 465-467 (1954); 6 Wigmore, Evidence, §§ 1766, 1770, 1772, and 1789 (3rd ed. 1940). It might be added that, even if all of the testimony to which this objection has been ma

litigated involved a Hare Krishna leader in West Virginia, who was charged with a wide assortment of crimes

ion that when it comes to rape only women always tell the truth. This bias is an wrongheaded as the anachronistic bias, reflected in the writings of Wigmore and others, that men are more likely to tell the truth than women. A highly publicized case in 2011 may well illustrate the reality that both men an

ly 20 years old. Epstein did not like her and did not want her brought again. Rivera added that Marsh was a heavy drug user. Miller also introduced Virginia Last Name Unknown (LNU), aka Jenny to Epstein. Virginia LNU was younger than Rivera and visited Epstein's residence one time. Virginia LNU had a S

to exist. With isthmian exceptions not pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality. See 8 Wigmore, supra § 2311, at 601-03 & nn. 6-8 (collecting cases). So here: XYZ knew that third parties-representatives of Smallco- were participating in the