Epstein Secrets

ted in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

t Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims’ attorneys about the NPA. In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards alleged that during telephone calls with Villafaña, he “asked very specific questions about what stage the investigation was in,” and Villafaña rep

he investigation was in,” and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the matter “was an on-going active investigation.” Edwards stated that Villafaña gave him “the impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing, both in the n

evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a c

During this time period, Villafana and the case agents interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal invest

and Villafana contacted victims’ attorney Bradley Edwards to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform victims or Edwards of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation. As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and

ated in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’

as evidence. See Fed! R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility' of their obtaining monetary damages through either a ci

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

hallenge. "Although the Government did not present 71 EFTA00088873 evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) permits authentication based on Mlle appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of t