Epstein Secrets

Discovery has revealed that during these negotiations, several drafts of the NPA were exchanged. See, e.g., Exh. C (9/17/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA); Exh. D (9/21/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA). In addition, the parties exchanged several drafts of

ted States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) 14, 22, 27, 29 United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 24 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S

Discovery has revealed that during these negotiations, several drafts of the NPA were exchanged. See, e.g., Exh. C (9/17/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA); Exh. D (9/21/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA). In addition, the parties exchanged several drafts of

ted States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004) 14, 22, 27, 29 United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 24 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 21 United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S

g pursuant to those statues, the caselaw was not clear that all federal victims would liavc been allowed to participate in the state plea hearing. In Lefkowitz’s November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued tliat Ilie statutes afforded a right to speak at a defendant’s sentencing or to submit a statement on

purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Defendant’s argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is presum