Epstein Secrets

ed to provide the draft indictment. We understand that we have no statutory right to a FBI 302 that inculpates Mr. Epstein (although we believe that Brady principles would encourage the disclosure of FBI 302 reports that exonerate him). We are concerned that there is information that could be rebutted

hat a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that, if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used... McBoyle v. U.S., 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931) (Justice Holmes). There could be no federal common law crimes because criminal law has traditionally been the provin

it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein's guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or dur

ill understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.'" Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted). Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help

s it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or durin

will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.”” Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 USS. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted), Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help t