Epstein Secrets

ty — namely, the fact that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case,

at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29? 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe NI. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents and met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 On about August 14, 200

ly — namely, the fad that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See. e.g.. United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563 (10th Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it now appears that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thu

t the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 3 EFTA00210792 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

8 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. 25 EFTA00178081 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 26 of 29 Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (le Cir. 1995); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999)). The Government, however, seeks to escape from the general rul

EFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. For all the reasons just explained, the Court should find that the Government has violated Jane Doe NI and Janc Doe #2's rights under the CVRA. At the tail end of its brief, however, the Government briefly raises a flurry of desperate arguments to avo

ty — namely, the fact that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case,

that the plea agreement made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution. Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe #2 thus detrimentally relied on the inaccurate representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office that their cases were still under investi

ity — namely, the fad that it was negotiated in violation of the victims' rights. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10°' Cir. 1995) (prosecutor agreed to recommend probation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case,

ary 2008 and May 2008. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the ca