Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 3 of 13 1 and Jane Doe 2. He and his own lawyer in a related state case, Jack Scarola, have been widely quoted by local and British press, making prejudicial and inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence betwee

nd inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence between the defense team and the government is not kept confidential, attorneys Scarola and Edwards could reasonably be expected to continue disseminating out-of-court publicity and making extrajudicial statements and commentary to the

principle that "[t]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large part to the separation of powers doctrine — prosecutors are delegates of the President, helping him

ide for me. And I was pretty mucn ome ess. JACK SCAROLA: One child would be lured over, would be paid sub

parks that were having gun shootings, drugs. My mother was on drugs at the time, and she couldn't provide for me. And I was pretty mucn ome ess. JACK SCAROLA: One child would be lured over, would be paid substantial sums of money, would be offered the further inducement of being paid a bounty for anybody

d "some evidence tending to show the existence" of the essential elements of a due process violation. Id., ECF No. 37 at 5 (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 469 (1996)). The government pointed to a standard typically applied in suppression cases—i.e., that discovery is appropriate only "i

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 9 of 19 I and Jane Doe 2. Ile and his own lawyer in a related state case, Jack Scarola, have been widely quoted by local and British press, making prejudicial and inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence betwee

nd inflammatory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence between the defense team and the government is not kept confidential, attorneys Scarola and Edwards could reasonably be expected to continue disseminating out-of-court publicity and making extrajudicial statements and commentary to the

g principle that It]he Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain broad discretion to enforce the Nation's criminal laws." United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996). This is due in large pan to the separation of powers doctrine — prosecutors are delegates of the President, helping him

1, 1 27. In her April 7, 2011 interview with Mr. Scarola, Jane Doe No. 3 stated that she was contacted in

public officials in the Executive Branch. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"); United States'. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996) ("power to prosecute" is "one of the core powers of the Executive Branch"). There is no history of "any private prosecutio