Epstein Secrets

the same time as Epstein was abusing Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2—is "necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Robinson argued at trial that Jane Doe was his `girlfriend' and that he had no control over her prostitution acti

that "the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" in its Jencks Act production. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial discl

his home. did not induce or persuade her to come by phone, did not speak to her at all by phone prior to her visit, did not induce or persuade Ms. Robson to bring an underage girl to his residence. and did not otherwise violate either the federal statute ' 2422(b) nor the travel for the purpose statu

ts, their credibility and the foundations. if any. for claiming personal injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks. material in the lbrm of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

he defend- ant] belonged to a gang or that gang membership would impeach [the defendant's testimony] about his 1- ligious beliefs"); United States Robinson, 978 F.2d 1554, 15 5 (10th Cir.1992) (rejecting a First Amendment challenge because "the government presented adequate ex- pert testimony as to th

statements of a witness on the subject of his testimony are the kind of evidentiary matter to which an adversary is entitled. F198. The Court in Jencks quoted the language of Mr. Clgef Justice Marshall in United State Burr, 25 Fed.Cas., No. 14,694, pp. 187, 191 (Va. 1807): "Now, if a paper be in

telephone. computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, hut rather in a nate-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. Robson) and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impassible to shoehorn this conduct into any of the above-discussed fe

nts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming person! injury. Also. Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the tbnn of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

telephone, computer or any other facility of interstate commerce, but rather in a face-to-face discussion with a third party who was her friend (Ms. Robson) and who told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age. As such, it is simply impossible to shoehorn this conduct into any of the above-discussed fe

ts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the