Epstein Secrets

enying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in deference to pending civil litigation); United States v. Aguirre-Gonzalez, 597 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2010) (relying on the "strong interest in the finality of criminal sentences" to reject mandamus under th

mpromised by any disclosure, regardless of whether the communications are later excluded as evidence in proceedings in this case. The plaintiffs in Bottaro sued a number of defendants for securities fraud. One defendant 5 EFTA00205564 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2

air the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction"); United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996); United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000). Thus, the only real purpose in seeking the plea negotiations is to offer them in evidence against M

inadmissibility would be compromised by any disclosure whether or not it was later excluded as evidence against the intervenor. The plaintiffs in Bottaro sued a number of defendants for securities fraud. One defendant settled and was dismissed from the lawsuit. The remaining defendants later moved to

titled to discovery or use of the plea negotiations because plea negotiations enjoy an evidentiary privilege, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995). Additionally, because plea negotiations are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust, and because

e inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of otherwise inadmissible material will issue ). The plaintiffs in Bottaro sued a number of defendants for securities fraud. One defendant settled and was dismissed from the lawsuit. The remaining defendants later moved to

General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). The Act codifies the long-standing principle that "[t]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large

he inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of otherwise inadmissible material will issue"). The plaintiffs in Bottaro sued a number of defendants for securities fraud. One defendant settled and was dismissed from the lawsuit. The remaining defendants later moved to