Epstein Secrets

ovision expanded as [USAO-SDFL prosecutor Maria] Villafana and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first,

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafaha, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaila believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 151, 152, 153 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 120, 127 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 115 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) 139, 141, 145 United States v. Tanu, 589 F.2d 82 (2d Cir

ment, the defendant asks the Court to order discovery and conduct a hearing. In short, 10 The OPR Report further reflects that in OPR's interview of Villafana, she reported that she did not have anyone in mind aside from the four individuals named in the "co-conspirator" provision: "Villafaiia told OPR th

States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) 207,211,217 United States v. Tanu, 589 F.

edged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well- known socialite, but, according to Villafana, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her." Accordingly, Villafaila believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who wou

States v. Stringer, 730 E 3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00103021 United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) 207, 211, 217 United States v. Tanu, 589

either mandatory nor absolute" (quoting United States v. Carter, 756 F.2d 310, 311 (3d Cir. 1985))). 9 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1) (2006). °! See, e.g., Swanson v. United States, 224 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1955) (applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius when constructing Fed. R. Crim.

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