Epstein Secrets

ound September 2007. plea discussions took place between Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneyed others. The plea discussions gener

Lefkowitz stain . SIMIMMISIO U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated• arnale EFTA00229924 Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 Apparently the ' gree

possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. AttorneMM sent an e-mail to Jay Leikowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office had an obligation to notify the victims S 12 EFTA00229928 7.7

tein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an email to Lefkowitz stain . SIMIMMISIO U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz

dentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. I1(b). Rule 1 1 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d I251, 1255 (11th ar. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe t

ely to reach th&Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Corresp

eflcowitz statingSeallISS SS U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated• B 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000678 EFTA00230502 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42

identiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan'. Daimleravysler, A.G., 331 F.3d I251, 1255 (11th ar. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe tha

1982), and that complete accuracy is of "crucial importance," United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). Portions of the requested instruction were unresponsive, portions were redundant, and portions were legally ina

has sufficient notice of the Government's theory at trial, she cannot claim that she was unfairly or substantially prejudiced. See United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 119, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2007). Finally, the Court bears in mind that the Defendant brings her motion pursuant to Rule 33, which permits the