Epstein Secrets

lsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Estein Farmer , Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL

al as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 22

-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L

specifically noted this evidentiary problem with Epstein's claim. The District Court gave as one reason for rejecting Epstein's contention based on Federal Rule of Evidence 410 that the rule does not even possibly protect "general discussions of leniency and statements made in the hope of avoiding a federal indictment - ar

f Law, Salt Lake Cty, UT, Bradley James Edwards, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehman, PL, Fort

P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders. The intervenors argued that the work-product priv- ilege protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Feder- al Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jur

tted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

tted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

1 and 2' United States, Case No. 08-80736-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Wcissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-

ane Doc 2 to release materials that are plainly the privileged opinion work-product of the attorneys, that constitute settlement negotiations under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure II, and that contain information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which arc strictly confidenti

held accountable for the numerous sex offenses he committed against many children," said Bradley Edwards, the women's trial counsel and a partner at Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale. Edwards said the documents at this point will be disclosed only to the plaintiffs a

y of the correspondence between the United States are Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys intervened, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations blocking release of the correspondence. They also argued that the