Epstein Secrets

9 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00099954 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 166, 169 United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 179, 180 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 8,20,27 United States v. Fennel!, 496 F. Supp.

respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafaila, the lead prosecutor on the case, and

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (

respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafatia, the lead prosecutor on the case, and

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00103012 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

tions omitted). " 4[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotingHerring v. Un ited States,555 U.S. 135, 141(2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that "[

at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafaiia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a d

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2

d following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); SanvaH, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); Farmer, 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United

ations omitted). "`[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

at 61-62. However, although the line prosecutor, Maria Villafaiia, subsequently sent the CEOS Chief a d

072288 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2019) 86 United States v. Dumitru, No. 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 261 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 123 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2

d following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); SanvaH, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); Farmer, 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United

ations omitted). "`[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that

potential co- conspirators of Epstein" evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafana and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA, with apparently little analysis

rvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 156 United States v. Dumitru, 18 Cr. 243 (LAK), 2018 WL 3407703 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018) 170 United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2019) 87 United States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 19 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d

following the development of a full factual record. See, e.g., Strohm, 671 at 1175 (appeal following conviction); Sarivari, 669 F.3d at 406 (same); Farmer, 137 F.3d at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United

tions omitted). " 4[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable deterrence." United States v. Eldred, 933 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 141 (2009)); see also Herring, 555 U.S. at 144 (concluding that