Epstein Secrets

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

for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal stat

t's alternatives are most relevant to this case. A specific employment practice or policy can comprise affirmative acts or inaction. Cf. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining an employer's responsibility to act to rectify a hostile or offensive work environment under Title VI

tration Date. 03/24/2010 Registration Expiration Date: 03/31/2011 Associates Executives: Prior - 2 prior executive(sl found NO. NAME TITLE 1. Mortensen, Tammy DIRECTOR (03/25/1999) 2. Mortensen, Troy L DIRECTOR (03/25/1999) Registered Agents -1 registered agent(s) found NO. NAME ADDRESS ST

convicted. Under these cir- cumstances we choose not to catalogue the S. Rich also argues that the Govemmeeyy breached its duty of disclosure under Brady Maryland. 373 U.S. 83. 83 S.Q. 1194. Ib L.Edld 313 (1963). by failing to release Was- goner's grand jury testimony. Under Brady, governmental supp

going determination, it is not necessary to examine the further contention of appellant that the judgment should be versed under authority of of Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1 . The judgment is reversed and the caw remanded with directions to enter judg- ment of acquittal. SANBOR

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

for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal sta