ced to Mr. Epstein. F. Finally, Mr. Epstein notes Rule 4.C.3 of Judge Berman's Individual Practices, which, inter alia, (1) requires disclosure of Brady materials within two weeks of its discovery; (2) re-affirms that the government's obligation applies "regardless of whether the Government 'credits

k 10007 Steptoe STEPTOE S .1(11.01CON I I Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein. No. 19-cr-00490 Defendant's Request for Particulars Discovery and Brady Material Dear Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Rossmiller: We arc writing on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein regarding discovery in this case. In order to pr

USION 29 EFTA00031264 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 27 passim Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Color of Change v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 Dep't of Interior

uld be disclosed when defendants make a 7 EFTA00031274 --- PAGE BREAK --- demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It found that the time required for

e counsel of this single line 66 Notably. the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

recognizes and has complied with its disclosure obligations under Brady,' defendants' request for immediate or otherwise early production of Brady materials is denied." (internal citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Perez, 940 F. Supp. 540, 553 (S.D.N.Y.1996))); Gallo,I999 WL 9848, at *8

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

itness "M." of this single line " Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

NY 10022 ♦1 212 957 7600 phono www colsmipossoo corn We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to set forth requests for discovery and Brady material. Based on our review of the government's productions of August 5, 2019, August 13, 2019, and August 21, 2020, we make the following request

rors, witnesses under examination, court reporters, and attorneys from the United States Department of Justice. Consistent with the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995), as well as your own professional obligations, we request that the g

0-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 34 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 27 passim Cases Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Color of Change v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 325 F. Supp. 3d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 27 Dept of Interior

AGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 34 demand for it. 267 F.3d at 146. The court held that as a general rule, Brady and its progeny do not require immediate disclosure of all impeachment material upon a defendant's request. Id. It found that the time required for

d Materials Anonymized Index (Produced Under Separate Cover) SDNY_00008123 Attorney's Eyes' Only The Government recognizes its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. The Government wishes to bring your attention to the following statements, which could constitute

produce these materials if and when the Court orders their production. Beyond the above materials, to date, the Government is unaware of any other Brady material regarding your client, but will provide timely disclosure if any such material comes to light. The Government will provide material under G

fense counsel of this single line Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

itness "M." of this single line " Notably, the unredacted report does not contain demonstrating that defense counsel's speculation about supposed Brady material lurking beneath redactions is inaccurate. The redacted copy defense counsel attached as Exhibit C was recovered during the execution of a s

mptly produce any potentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

bligation to obtain the personal papers of a third party, see United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Government's `Brady obligations extend only to materials within prosecutors' possession, custody or control or, in appropriate cases, that of the Department of Justice

tentially exculpatory material if any is identified during that review. 188 EFTA00095280 The Government is not currently aware of any undisclosed Brady material in its possession, but it will certainly provide timely disclosure of any additional Brady material if any such material comes to light. C

n, finding nothing to suggest the withholding of evidence material to the appellant's guilt or to his punishment. The court also expressed doubt that Brady was intended to apply to testimony before a grand jury. In Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), appellant Jackman contended the trial

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)

ssurances of preservation -- requires a full factual record and, if appropriate, sanctions for the loss of the evidence. The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused upon request violates due proces

s listed on search inventories, please let us know, and we will make arrangements for you to do so. The Government recognizes its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Pursuant to those obligations, we are disclosing the information below. This disclosure should no

was legally obligated to do so. shows that the government has accept e accusers accounts without serious scrutiny. Given the ovenunent's ongoittti Brady obligations. it is unsettling that the government would simply acce Contrary to the government's assertion_ the defense has not abandoned our legal

cene.html? r=2 Sources “States of Bankruptcy, Part I: The Coming State Pensions Crisis”, Joint Economic Committee Republicans, Representative Kevin Brady and Senator Jim DeMint, December 8, 2011 “The Trillion Dollar Gap, Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Roads to Reform”, Pew Center, Februa

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

se was examining his diary, . . . he requested that this not be done." Id. While the parties were discussing how to review the diary, including for Brady material, the diary was returned to the witness. It was only given to the defense for examination after "roughly five days" in the witness's possess

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

considers unfavorable to Ms. Maxwell, begrudgingly EFTA00014671 --- PAGE BREAK --- The Honorable Alison J. Nathan May 12, 2021 Page 2 produce Brady material with various disclaimers such as "although the government is not obligated to do so" (Dkt. 269 pp. 8, 9), and obfuscate the importance of l