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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Fonie, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Since

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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc

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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc

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

nited States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 150 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 48 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016) 122 United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004) 179 United States v. Cheu

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc