Epstein Secrets

in, possesses the power to move forward with its criminal prosecution against EPSTEIN. EPSTEIN entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida. The terms and conditions of the NPA also entailed EPSTEIN entering into a Pl

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2. All documents referring or relating to the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between

-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 9 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 9 can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conbov 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). See also, Hubbell, supra, quoted above as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained

he answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. gI at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege stated — ... It is for the court to say whether his silence

t trial. Id• Pillsbury Company 11 EFTA00222535 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). 5se also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth

e answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. Id at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege stated — ... It is for the court to say whether his silence

convict the witness of a crime or could aid in the development of other incriminating evidence that can be used at trial. Id; Pillsbury Company v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). Certainly, if the USAO decides to prosecute EPSTEIN for an alleged violation of the NPA, it would undoubtedly

he answers cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. gI at 488, 399. Recognizing the breadth and magnitude of this constitutional privilege, the United States Supreme Court in discussing how a court is to analyze the application of the privilege stated — ... It is for the court to say whether his silence

t trial. Id• Pillsbury Company 11 EFTA00067393 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 v. Conbov, 495 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608 (1983). 5se also, Hubbell, supra, as to what is encompassed by the phrase "in any criminal case" contained in the Fifth