Epstein Secrets

and placed in the public portion of the court file O Destroyed 0 Returned to the party or counsel for the party, as identified above A`tancy for: United Stales of Vifierica EFTA00179092 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-64 AND

ry on September 18, 2007. However, 'Witness William Riley did not file an initial motion to quash the grand jury subpoenas, but did file a Reply to the United States' Response to the Intervenor's Motion to Quash. Accordingly, the United States has not previously had the opportunity to respond to the issue raised b

vestigation of these crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The Supreme Court has routinely recognized the grand jury's unique role in the United States' criminal justice system. The grand jury "belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Go

FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNDER SEAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the United States of America's Motion for Permission to File a supplemental Ex Parte Affidavit in support of its Response to the Motion to Quash. Upon review of the motion, it i

84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY-63 and OLY-64 FGJ 07-103(WPB) UNITED STATES' SURREPLY TO REPLIES FILED BY WITNESS WILLIAM RILEY AND INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN RE: MOTION TO OUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS UNDER SEAL EFTA0017908

luding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Because [the attorney

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (.5th Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681 (1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

13 Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19,116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47,100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whcn

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

, 682 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2004) 43 State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2007) 42 State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M.1980) 43 Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castan

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5ih Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681(1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidenc,e."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19, 116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whe

ator Feinstein)(explaining that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive," applying to "any critical state or disposition of the case") and United States v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to enga

ted States of America. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 01/26/2012) 01/26/2012 .1.44 RESPONSE in Opposition re_12$ Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by United States of America. (Sanchez, Eduardo) (Entered: 01/26/2012) 01/27/2012 145 ENDOR ingitl Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge on 1/27/2012. (ir)

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

plea from state court in federal proceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act allegedly committed by the United States, not "against" Epstein. And even if rescission of the non-prosecution agreement abuts Epstein's interests, the purpose of the admission does not cha

F.2d at 1004. Although Congress empowered the federal courts through Rule 501 to "continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges," Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 910 (1980), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has

on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . .. and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. Now, having reaped the benefits of the NPA,

l courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The Supreme Court has recognized that "Rules 410 and 11(e)(6) `creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant . . . ."'