January 01, 2007
Evidence was evaluated by prosecutors in another jurisdiction.
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| prosecutors | person | 54 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00005587.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed by the prosecution ('Government') arguing against the defense's desire to introduce evidence related to a past charging decision from a Florida investigation. The prosecution contends this evidence is irrelevant, cumulative, and would invite the jury to speculate, creating a 'bizarre spectacle' that distracts from the actual evidence of the current trial. The document cites case law to support its position that the jury should only consider the evidence presented in this specific case, not the prosecutorial decisions made in other jurisdictions.
Events with shared participants
Federal court hearing where declarant learned of the secret plea deal.
2008-07-01 • Federal Court
Deadline set by Acosta for prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters (5 p.m. Friday).
2007-12-07
The witness's very first meeting with agents and prosecutors.
2025-11-09
Prosecutors interviewed Epstein's lawyers.
Date unknown
Rodgers was interviewed by the government/prosecutors.
2020-02-07
An interview between Rodgers and prosecutors, where he was asked about a person named Jane.
2020-02-07
OPR investigated allegations that USAO prosecutors improperly resolved a federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's criminal conduct.
2007-01-01 • Southern District of Florida
A redacted party approached prosecutors multiple times before a grand jury subpoena was issued.
Date unknown
Epstein was ultimately permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to a state indictment and one additional state offense, receiving an 18-month sentence, which differed from the original proposal.
Date unknown
A subsequent criminal prosecution where evidence from a prior civil case might be used.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event