Epstein Secrets

pport the need for an inspection); e. Murphy v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. , 2008 WL 3926715 (N.D. Fla.

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

Sex Sells, Inc. Tech., at 4, 45-51 (1996); Alvin Cooper, Sexuality and the Internet: Surfing into the ne

43 F.3d 72, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2003). These courts have drawn a distinction between the legally established definition of "obscenity," as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Miller and the terms "pornography" and "pornographic materials." These courts have also recognized that prohibitions against convicted sexual of

y errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye,

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA0020534

y errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye,

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA0020536

n re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed during the litigation on intervention. We only add that, in Lafler' Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri.. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), the United States Supreme Court flatly rejected the arguments by Jane Doe 1 and

as nothing but a process that judges "tolerate." [DE 109 at 12-14]. This is foolish. Just today, two separate cases were heard on oral argument at the United States Supreme Court directly addressing the duties of counsel to communicate plea offers to their clients as an imperative of the Sixth Amendment's right to effective

s," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA001778