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

very of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation

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

ery of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation

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

very of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery) must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (recognizing the chilling effect that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiations

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

ery of admissible evidence and the defendants have not made any showing to the contrary, this justification for [discovery] must fail. Id.; accord Reist, 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (recognizing the "chilling effect" that discovery can have on the willingness of parties to enter into settlement negotiation