Epstein Secrets

109, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (emphases The express language of Rule 410 also makes clear that "derivative evidence" is never excluded from a proceeding. See United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 1987). 8 EFTA00205735 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 9 of 2

ary of Enclosures" and justified the privilege by characterizing the documents as "attorney-client communication[s]" without explanation.") (citing United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996)).8 Once the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bea

stitutional considerations" that supposedly undergird plea bargain, the simple fact remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977). The Court should not exalt to privileged status negotiations that merely serve the administrative convenience

ise must be fulfilled." Santobellol New York, 4O4 U.S. 257 (1971). Failure to enforce the government's side of a plea bargain violates Due Process. United States' Yesil, 991 F.2d 1527, 1532-33 (11th Cir. 1992). The plaintiffs knowingly sat on their CVRA claims for years as Mr. Epstein served a prison sentence

sentence that will be imposed."' Plea negotiations implicate significant constitutional and policy considerations. The plaintiffs argue that under Weatherford Bursey, "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain," but that is not what the case held. What the Supreme Court actually said is that there

r showing of a `substantial case on the merits when the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.'" DE 206 at 2 (citing United States' Hamilton, 963 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted)). Citing relevant caselaw, the district court found that Epstein had "neither

arn about negotiation on the subject of notifications to crime victims. 4 It is well settled that "there is no constitution right to plea bargain." Weatherford I Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977). A copy of the victims' pleading is attached to this response at Attachment B. 6 Epstein has never contested th

6, 1998, at BS. 22 Victims' Rights Amendment. Hearing on S.J. Res. 6 Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 105th Cong. 64 (1997) (statement of Janet Reno, U.S. Att'y Gen.). 30 See www.nveap.org (last visted Dec. 30, 2007). 3! For a comprehensive history of victims' efforts to pass a constitutional amendment,

able to reflect the new role of victims throughout the Rules. Moreover, Congress intended the CVRA to be "a formula for success" and a "model for our States." + The only way the federal rules could serve as a model, I argued, was by fully implementing victims’ rights. I then proposed twenty-eight specific

Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 146 (3d Cir. 1980)). 292 548 A.2d 408, 415 (Vt. 1988). 293 Td. at 413. 294 Td. at 414-15. 295 Iq. 296 Fd. at 415. 297 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); see also United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002) (quoting Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v.

15. 295 Iq. 296 Fd. at 415. 297 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); see also United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002) (quoting Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bag

Product Doctrine 2 (3rd ed. 1997). Nonetheless, not every intrusion on the attorney-client privilege constitutes a constitutional violation. Under Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 554, 97 S.Ct. 837, 843, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977), an intrusion may result in a constitutional violation if privileged informa

as a result of the intrusion; and (4) whether the privileged information was used or will be used to the substantial detriment of the defendants. Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 558, 97 S.Ct. at 845; Kelly, 790 F.2d at 137. While neither the Supreme Court nor this Circuit have yet explained how these factors ar

ials. The proponent of the privilege bears the burden to establish its existence, United States v. (Under Seal), 748 F.2d 871, 876 (4th Cir.I 984); United States v. Covington & Burling, 430 F.Supp. 1117, 1122 (D.D.C.I 977), and absent the timely assertion of attorney-client privilege for each specific commun