Epstein Secrets

arey had on June 1, 2006, with ASA regarding a meeting earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of the meeting (Police Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other defense counsel, there was i

tate Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of t

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su

tective had on June 1, 2006, with regarding a meeting earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of the meeting (Police Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other defense counsel, there was i

tate Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of t

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su

those words have real meaning by providing a telling example of an inadequate State process: "a state prosecution for assault and battery in a Mr. Goldberger. In short, it is hard to imagine how the recusal of an assistant to the lead prosecutor could have resulted in any advantage to Mr. Epstein; more to

Leflcowitz attaching draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 32. 17 While federal prosecutors once suggested that Mr. Epstein's retention of Jack Goldberger was intended to trigger the recusal of assistant prosecutor Dahlia Weiss and thereby influence the outcome of the State prosecution, that assertion

S.A.M. § 9-2.031A. Even if these prerequisites are satisfied, however, the Department retains substantial discretion to decline prosecution. As the Policy explains, "[s]atisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. Even then,