Epstein Secrets

ement is being introduced on behalf of, or against, 17 knows about the statement. So when you look at their papers, 18 they cite United States v. Gotti for the proposition that it 19 goes to state of mind. Well, you know who Mr. Gotti is, and 20 Mr. Gotti was charged with witness tampering. Mr. G

d 21 to introduce some wiretapped statements that the FBI had, where 22 he was talking to an informant and telling the informant things 23 that Gotti said went to his state of mind. Well, the Second 24 Circuit said, yes, you can do that, Mr. Gotti, first of all, 25 because the government's intr

hat we proposed to the Court about the 18 financial status comes from the very cases that are in the 19 Second Circuit, and that's the words that the Second Circuit 20 and district courts in the Southern District use. And I quote 21 from Tillery: No evidence as to defendant's financial status 22 may be pres

ement is being introduced on behalf of, or against, 17 knows about the statement. So when you look at their papers, 18 they cite United States v. Gotti for the proposition that it 19 goes to state of mind. Well, you know who Mr. Gotti is, and 20 Mr. Gotti was charged with witness tampering. Mr. G

d 21 to introduce some wiretapped statements that the FBI had, where 22 he was talking to an informant and telling the informant things 23 that Gotti said went to his state of mind. Well, the Second 2.1 Circuit said, yes, you can do that, Mr. Gotti, first of all, 25 because the government's int

And they take the Fifth. So there we are. The question is, are we going to conceal that from the jury or are we going to present it to them? Well, the Second Circuit case that your Honor is well familiar with, LiButti, sets out the factors that have determined that issue, and one of the things we hear from the

ty without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 295 ("The questions about the legal a

) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, EFTA00030252 --- PAGE BREAK --- Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge

ty without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 295 ("The questions about the legal a

elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at

ed provides the motive for him do so and is another significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987). So too is the strength of the evidence, detailed above and in the Government's Detention Memo. Indeed, that evidence, already robust less th

ty without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 295 ("The questions about the legal a

n to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a def