Epstein Secrets

itig., 181 F.R.D. 582, 601 (N.D. III. 1998)(intervention allowed so that intervenor could participate in settlement negotiations); United States v. Maine Dep't of Transp., 980 F.Supp. 546, 549 (D.Me. 1997)(noting that intervenors participated in settlement discussions); Bucket v. ITT Consumer Fin/Cor

mise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled"); United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008)("Due process requires the government to adhere to the promises it has made in a plea agreement"). Thus, the g

; Illinois: Ill. S.Ct. Rule 402(f); Indiana: Ind. R. Evid. 410; Iowa: Iowa R. Evid. 5.410; Kentucky: Ky R. Evid. 410; Louisiana: LSA- C.E. Art. 410; Maine: Maine R. Evid. 410; Maryland: Md. Rules, Rule 5-410; Massachusetts: Mass. R. Crim. P. 12(f); Michigan: Mich. R. Evid. 410; Minnesota: Minn. R. Evi

2007) 42 State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M.1980) 43 Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665

00299070 process," id., which prohibits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment." New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). "Stated simply, the doctrine of judicial estoppel rests on the principle that "absent any good explanation, a party s

mise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled"); United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Due process requires the government to adhere to the promises it has made in a plea agreement"). "[W]hen a