Epstein Secrets

1993) 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80893-Marra (United States District Court S.D. Fla. 2008) 4

ng waiver of "confidentiality of the corpus" of communications from a telephone call disclosing part of privilege communications); United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that waiver of attorney-client privilege extended to the entirety of two letters written by Jacobs' attorne

3 Misc.2d 179, 425 N.Y.S.2d 485, (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct. 1980) 13 People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 549 N.E.2d 1183 (N.Y. 1989) 10 United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 13 iii EFTA00728064 United States v. Sanusi, 813 F. Supp. 149 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) fn. 4 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2255

in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex.

s inadmissible when the evidence is introduced solely to prove bad character, or that the person acted in conformity with his character. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Westgate, 766 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (error to admit evidence that roommate bounced checks in action for negligent disposition of propert

F FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defen

of whether she consented to or complied with the sexual acts charged. See United States Stone, 472 F.2d 909, 919 (5th Cir. 1973)• Virgin Islands'. Jacobs, 634 F.Supp. 933, 936-37 (D. ■ 1986) (policy of rule disallowing evidence to show character of assault victim); Dept. of Professional Regulation I.