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

nnelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Incl. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets." Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus' decision in In re Air Crash

unications from disclosure to third parties outside the negotiation process. 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918). EFTA00209671 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 16 of 75 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND STATEMENT OF FACTS In Septembe

tomary practices of the defense and prosecution function, entitled to assume would remain confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties. See United States v. Deloitte UP, 610 F.3d 129, 141 (D.C.Cir. 2010)(court "examine[s] whether the disclosing party had a reasonable basis for believing that the reci

Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 55 Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511 (W.D.Pa. 2000) 34, 37, 40 Shriver v. State, 632 P.2d 420 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 4

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

Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal Jan. 6,

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets. Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus decision in In re Air Crash

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

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M

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

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M