Epstein Secrets

7 S.Ct 2434, 2440, 58 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977) (Hunt k Simon, 426 U.S. at 40, 96 S.Ct. at 1925; Worth, 422 U.S. at 611, 96 S.Ct at 2211; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1868, 81 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) (Sierra Club). In Hunt, the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determin

t will adequately pro- tect and secure for the defendant the ben- efit of his bargain under the nonprosecu- tion agreement if he is entitled to it." Bailey, 34 F.3d at 691; see Bird, 709 F.2d at 392 (same). Here, Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield may interpose the Agreement (as a defense to conviction) in

ea immunity from prosecution, but to provide him with a shield against successful prose- cution, available to him as a defense"); United States v. Bailey, 34 F.3d 683, 690- 91 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that an agree- ment "not to prosecute" protected the de- fendant from "the inherent risk of convic- tio

include a prosecution under Garrett, 190 3d 1220 (116 Cir. §2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 2004),judgnwru vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 006); United States I Orrega, 363 I3d 1093 (116 Cir. 2004

, 311 I. 3d 557, 161-63 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S.' Meek, 366 3d 705, 720- 22 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S. Panti I, 338 3d 1299, 1300-01 (I I" Cir. 2003); U.S. Bailey, 228 F. 3d 637, 639 (6" Cir. 2000). Case No. 08-80736-C V-MARRA P-011949 EFTA00226737 eattWithentiali th umse Ct. S.An r•&it EIVVY,_ LOHen 1

- communicate or otherwise interact improperly with persons who turn out to be minors. A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As we believe we persuaded you at the June 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — w

pt. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting 48 EFTA00224182 COURT a CASES` FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE a 1 l'h Cir. U.S. I Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004) Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victims";

of jurisdiction because judge knew that she could depart downward. 19 EFTA00224153 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. I Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6s Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform o

ozen Eleventh Circuit cases involving prosecutions under § 2422(b), most of which involve this prototypical fact pattern. See. e.g., United States Morton. 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx.

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (1 I th Cir. 2004). See also United States'. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of t

zen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecutio under §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States'. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (I I* Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 115 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United Stalest Grego, 363 F.3d 1093 (II* Cir. 2

enge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or enticesminors. United States' Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States'. Pcmfil, 338 F.3d 1° Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any cal may claim to h

zen Eleventh Circuit cases involving prosecutions under § 2422(b), most of which involve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g„ United States v. Morton. 364 F3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light stf Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx.

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cu. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of t

FTA01729530 COURT - , .. . AR -• A • R , ‘,,. ;FolOitilt• 4 ,F41/4001COMWAR 410 11 0 W : ' • :''' ' ''''CIT , . , 11'" Cir. Cir. U.S. v. Morton. 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004) • Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victim

t she could depart downward. 17 EFTA01729501 • COURT .. .... r %. • AS' - -.. *AMITY :. OO)$/g.PNOWNICAtI0N, ' ' , COAR.qE..- , U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (61h Cir. 2000 ) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

46 EFTA00079459 2.„. sl.s.w • 4 ... ' el.. ••. •• .- ,, ‘ IT lc: i - • '1O • • • '" P m. Y ,. • ,-... Stiisz< 111h Or. U.S. v. Morton. 364 F.3d 1300 (11" Cir. 2004) Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victims";

at she could depart downward. 17 EFTA00079430 {nv , . ,..y..4 .,,p.th : I r . j"'T ' -77 SS aks24.2-2.(b: 74;11-. 1~.9 iwic.# U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

n Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (I Is Cir. 2004),judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir

e to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who 'knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 1° Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any call may claim t

n Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004),judgment varied for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir.

e to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to