Epstein Secrets

or Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jay Epstein Paul Cassell 383 S. University Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730

ry, Goldberger & Weiss, . 250 Australian Avenue S., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jay Epstein Paul Cassell 383 S. University Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 [email protected] Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel fora., E. It". and Jane Doe Jay Howell Jay

is not prejudiced by the late disclosure, and compelling circumstances are not otherwise shown, the witness should generally be allowed to testify." Walters v. Keebler Co., 652 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Here, there is no question that Mr. Smith is qualified to testify. Further, due to Edwards

about how the government should handle every aspect of this matter, both in civil and potential criminal proceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invitation remains open. The government's efforts to speak with victims are ongoing, and it will seek le

roceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invita

dering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substantial injustice on another." Walters a City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1149 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Of course the effect on innoc

ictims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules o Criminal Procedure 2007 Reporter 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861 * Length: 59852 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2002-07. Thanks to

in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 835, 852-924 [hereinafter Cassell, Proposed Amendments]. 5 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a)(8). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017637 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 3 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *865

v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475 (1973) (finding no constitutional barrier to reciprocal discovery rules that act as a "two-way street"); cf. Forsythe v. Walters, 38 F. App'x 734, 737 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding that "application of the CVRA does not exact a punishment and therefore the CVRA can not violate the Ex

dering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substantial injustice on another." Walters v. City of Atlanta, 803 F.2d 1135, 1149 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Doll v. Brown, 75 F.3d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1996) ("Of course the effect on inno

about how the government should handle every aspect of this matter, both in civil and potential criminal proceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invitation remains open. The government's efforts to speak with victims are ongoing, and it will seek le

roceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invita