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

speedy trial right "may attach before an indictment and as early as the time of arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge." ) United States v. Gouveia 467 U.S. 180, 190, 104 S. Ct. 2292, 2298, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984). 18 The Majority argues: "Although it's true, at least in the abstract, that the te

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

y judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment"? a United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188, 104 S. Ct. 2292, 2297, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). But a civil litigant has no constitutional ri

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:

? More importantly for purposes of this Article, the cases holding Tl See 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (e) (2012). 7 U.S. Const. amend. VI. ® United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190 (1984) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cob

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:

ion phase and an earlier investigative phase when "no prosecution is under way." !8° Senator Kyl, for 72 U.S. Const. amend. VI. 73 United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190 (1984) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cob