Epstein Secrets

07, the Office's prosecutors were recommending and ready to proceed with the federal indictment of Epstein. In early September 2007, U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta met with some of Epstein's defense team, along with the federal prosecutors assigned to Epstein's case and the Chief of the Child Exploitation and

te" threat of future CVRA violations. [ Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected petitioner's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that petitioner had already participated in an Epstein- related hearing in New York, that the Epstein prosecution had concluded, and

t for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" does not begin with the criminal complaint's filing. See P. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution."); see also, e.g., ‘I

cute Epstein, maintaining he committed no federal crimes. However, following a September 7, 2007 meeting with Epstein's defense team, U.S. Attorney Alexander R. Acosta" notified Epstein's team that "our Office [has] decided to proceed with the indictment." 3 Despite this statement, the former U.S. Attorney subseque

ediate" threat of future CVRA violations. Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected Ms. Wild's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over Acosta, that she had already had the opportunity to participate in an Epstein- related hearing in N

ates v. States, 652 F.3d 734. 741- 42 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69, 82—84 (1st Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) (same). Rather, the Sixth Amendment right doesn't attach—because a "prosecution" doesn't begin—until, at the

er revealed that after negotiations started, “[w]hat followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by Epstein. Letter from R. Alexander Acosta, former U.S. Att’y, to Whom It May Concern (Mar. 20, 2011), reprinted in Conchita Sarnoff, Behind Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Sweetheart Deal, DAILY

2011), reprinted in Conchita Sarnoff, Behind Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Sweetheart Deal, DAILY BEAST (Mar. 25, 2011, 3:17 AM), http://goo.gl/kyveiF. Acosta, however, claimed that the pressure did not influence the ultimate disposition of the case. Id. 44 Landon Thomas Jr., From Paradise to County Jail:

etween misdemeanor and 65 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d\(3) (2012)). °° Id. 67 Td. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 1.2(g), at 11 (Sth ed. 2009) (emphasis added). © OLC CVRA Righ

, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). 7 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 n.15 (citing Hanrahan v. United States, 348 F.2d 363, 366 n.6 (D.C.

ater revealed that after negotiations started, "what followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" by Epstein. Letter from R. Alexander Acosta, former U.S. Att'y, to Whom It May Concern (Mar. 20, 2011), reprinted in Conchita Sarnoff, Behind Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's Sweetheart Deal, Daily

011), reprinted in Conchita Sarnoff, Behind Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's Sweetheart Deal, Daily Beast (Mar. 25, 2011, 3:17 AM), http://goo.gi/kyveiF’. Acosta, however, claimed that the pressure did not influence the ultimate disposition of the case. Id. “4 Landon Thomas Jr., From Paradise to County Jail:

442 U.S. 330,339 (1979). 6 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 (quoting /8 U.S.C. § 3771(d)G) (2012)). 66 Td. 67 Id. (citing United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006)). 68 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 1.2(g), at 11 (5th ed. 2009) (emphasis added). 6° OLC CVRA Rig

on also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that "the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warrant. The cri