Epstein Secrets

s produced all of the discovery in this matter, including, but not limited to any alleged F.R.E. 404(b) information, all witness statements, and all Brady and Giglio material. Dated: March 15, 2021 2 EFTA00028965 --- PAGE BREAK --- Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagli

2d Cir.2000); Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 49, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Worthington v. Endee, 177 F.R.D. 113, 116-17 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Peck v. United States, 514 F. Supp. 210, 213 (S.D.N.Y.), on reargument, 522 F. Supp. 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); State of N. D. ex reL Olson v. And

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00020263 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00022093 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require

charges are sufficiently specific. • Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim 4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and t

Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indic

ierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). The sex trafficking charges are theref

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00029542 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require

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

onvincing Congress to expand their discretion at the expense of judges' sentencing authority, see United States v. Kupa, 976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (describing the legislative history and Justice Department lobbying related to federal drug statutes, notably 27 U.S.C. § 841 (2012)). 218 See

lso United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002) (quoting Weatherford, 429 U.S. at 559). 298 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470,474 (1973). 299 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 300 See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985). 301 United States v. Garrett, 238 F.3d 293, 302 (St

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --

but not limited to communications with the United States Attorney's Offices for the Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. EFTA00016140 --- PAGE BREAK --- August 1, 2019 Page 6 Steptoe MOON & JOHNSON LIP 27. Relating to any investigation undertaken by the

entify the "other" overt acts ("the following overt acts, among others") referenced in ¶ 22 of the indictment. IV. Brady Material A. Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, including Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding

l filed her Motion, she did not have access to the government's emails and AUSA contemporaneous notes, despite their obvious exculpatory value. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963). The government did not disclose these materials until Maxwell challenged the government's candor and conduc

ses Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313 (.=. Sept 14, 2006) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Marcel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 19

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding