Epstein Secrets

e counsel in this matter.” Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in Epstein’s case. “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons: I won’t put in writing,” Krischer wrote, shortly afte

at were exchanged dealt with prosecutors’ and Epstein’s lawyers’ shared desire to keep the deal secret from Epstein’s accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal. “And can wehave a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to ... the girls regardin

s. (2) The Palm Beach Post's Standing and the Public Interest. 56. The press has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the inte

ounsel in this matter." Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in Epstein's case. "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing," Krischer wrote, shortly af

were exchanged dealt with prosecutors' and Epstein's lawyers' shared desire to keep the deal secret from Epstein's accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal. "And can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to ... the girls regar

2) The Palm Beach Post’s Standing and the Public Interest. 53. The press has a constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the int

PBPD brought the case to the FBI’s attention because of a concern that the State Attorney’s Office had succumbed to “pressure” from defense counsel. Villafana informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Acosta confirmed that he was aware that the

. I 83, The Sup_reme Col!rt has further recogniz~d tha.t the pres_s h~s a constitution~l -ngp,t I of access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v: VirgiJJia, 448 U.S. 555, 3 indC!ed, such a limitation would render the ~t.atute a prior restraint, ''the most seribus and the ieast tol_etable

ppear at the sentencing. “Tve been spending some quality time with Title 18 [the U.S. criminal code] looking for misdemeanors,” the lead prosecutor, A. Marie Villafafia, wrote to Epstein’s lawyers on Sept. 13, 2007, adding that she was trying to find “a factual basis” for one or more non-sex-related crimes to charge

. Superior Court, A478 U.S. 1 (1986)... eececsssescssseeseeseeeesseeseeseeeseseseesaeesseesesecessessseesesseseeesecaesaeeaeseseanseaesaneeaseass 13 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)... eeeesecsceesesseeeseeseecseseeceseeseessesseseeeeseesaeesseaessesoeeseeeesceeseeesesenseeeeates 13, 14 Constitut

phasis added). Courts have held that Brady obligations extend only to prosecutors, because the Supreme Court has not imposed this duty on others. See Villasana v. Wilhoit, 368 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2004). w 4 See Brady, 373 U.S. at 88. w > 162 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1998). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

ions on right of public access to trials bolsters the understanding of the Article II's provision to protect the community interest. In cases such as Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, the Court has held that implicit in the First Amendment is a guarantee of the public's right to attend trials. 3”4 Compelling victims’ i