Epstein Secrets

thout notifying the victims Their case is pending in U.S. District Court in Wesl Palm Beach. The 24-page published opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he ordered the correspondence turned over to the victims. "Sweetheart plea' `We're now going to get a co

ublished opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he orde

discovery of the correspondence between the U.S. and 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, barring release of the correspondence. They also argued that th

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00606603

ons and settlement communications have no tradition of being publically accessible," and that "serious Sixth Amendment implications," the spirit of Federal Rule of Evidence 410, and the "environment of confidentiality" fostered by 10 EFTA00606597 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 326 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2015 Page

e specifically explained that they were going to use the correspondence in this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

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

e specifically explained that they were going to use the correspondence in this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

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

l Protective Order (DE 305) is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

lorida, this 15ih day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 16 EFTA00674431

ons and settlement communications have no tradition of being publically accessible," and that "serious Sixth Amendment implications," the spirit of Federal Rule of Evidence 410, and the "environment of confidentiality" fostered by 10 EFTA00674425 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 326 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2015 Page

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

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

ecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women

erly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crim

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

oe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00317246 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Do

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

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

ane Doe 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 11, and that contain information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which are strictly confidenti

id not apply to pre-indictment negotiations with potential federal defendants. After Jane Doe No. 2 joined the initial petition, the district court (Marra, J.) found that both women qualified as “crime victims” under the CVRA. The district court later_rejected the government's argument that the act only

r discovery of the correspondence between the U.S. and 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, barring release of the correspondence. They also argued that the