Epstein Secrets

s representing criminals, your Office would promptly turn over to us all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under the Brady and Giglio decisions. We asked your Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would provide to criminals — i.e., we asked Dexter

I I TOTAL P.004 EFTA01711981 (Rev. 05-01-2008) • • UNCLASSIFIED FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Precedence: ROUTINE Date: 11/24/2010 To: Jacksonville Attn: CFR Miami ofAttn: SA From: Jacksonville Squad 10 Contact: SA Approved By: Drafted By: Case ID #: 802R-JK-52669--11(Closed) 3113-MM-10

r statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 Attorney for Plaintiffs [Service via CM/ECF] Jay C. Howell Jay Howell & Associates PA 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville , FL 32211 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE [Service via CM/ECF] Paul G. Cassell Email: [email protected] [Service via CM/ECF] EFTA00

r statements, their credibility and the foundations, if any, for claiming personal injury. Also, Mr. Epstein would have received, pursuant to either Brady or Jencks, material in the form of prior inconsistent statements made by these women before they learned of any financial benefit that may be avail

8033 Fax: (954) 924-1530 Attorney for Plaintiffs [Service via CM/ECF] Jay C. Howell Jay Howell & Associates PA 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville , FL 32211 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE [Service via CM/ECF] Paul G. Cassell Email: [email protected] [Service via CM/ECF] EFTA002

de v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52-58 (1991) (defining "prompt" under Gerstein's requirement of a prompt judicial determination of probable cause). 6 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86 (1963) (holding prosecution's withholding of the confession of defendant's confederate violated defendant's due process

1 U.S. 352, 355 (1983) (holding due process bars unduly vague offense definitions to reduce opportunities for selective enforcement); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972) (same). 26 See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968) (regarding trial by jury as a "safeguard against the corrupt