Epstein Secrets

f victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1.

esolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney

ication letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who r

ts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

f victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1.

esolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney

ication letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who r

ts, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be available to the

SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associa

ed that, when defense counsel elected to put his investigator on the witness stand at trial, he must turn over the investigator's report pursuant to Jencks, but defense counsel can redact the report to only disclose that portion of the report that relates to the investigator's testimony. 7 EFTA006001

SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associa

ed that, when defense counsel elected to put his investigator on the witness stand at trial, he must turn over the investigator's report pursuant to Jencks, but defense counsel can redact the report to only disclose that portion of the report that relates to the investigator's testimony. 7 EFTA006570

cial effect. See Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182. If requested, such evidence must be admitted with limiting instructions to the jury. See United States v. Edwards, 342 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit "ha[s] adopted an inclusionary approach to evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence, which allows evid

that "the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements" in its Jencks Act production. (Gov't Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial discl

ent's charges, this Court assured both adequate notice of the allegations against the defendants and ample opportunity for a meaningful de- fense. Edwards, 430 A.2d at 1339-41. 4. Even in full-blown criminal trials, the Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause poses the only constitutional objection to

on probable cause, the court commonly will schedule a consolidated preliminary and detention hearing at which the prosecution must make available "Jencks" statements. If a hup://10.173.2.12/usao/cousa/olc/usaboolddrug/26drug.lum 4/10/2008 EFTA00191628 Federal Narcotics Prosecutions - Chapter 26 P