Mr. Weinberg is acting as defense counsel and speaks about needing to assess 'Mr. Epstein's ability'.
Mr. Weinberg is acting as defense counsel and speaks about needing to assess 'Mr. Epstein's ability'.
Weinberg argues in defense of Epstein's compliance with the NPA
Mr. Weinberg states: 'I have been one of Mr. Epstein's counsel through the CVRA litigation'
DOJ-OGR-00000615.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 6, 2019, detailing a conversation between the judge and defense counsel, Mr. Weinberg, about scheduling a trial. Mr. Weinberg requests a preliminary trial date after Labor Day to allow time to assess his client, Mr. Epstein's, 'ability'. The judge questions this request in light of a presumed desire for a speedy trial, to which Weinberg responds by citing the length of the trial and the timing of discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00000397.jpg
This is page 11 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues to The Court that the discussion should concern the scope of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), not its legality. He references a filing by Northern District of Georgia prosecutors (acting for Southern District of Florida) before Judge Marrah that supported the NPA's constitutionality and asserted Epstein fulfilled his obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00000395.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (SDNY). The prosecution argues that the Southern District of New York is not bound by the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg counters that the NPA provided Epstein with immunity for the conduct currently being prosecuted, including interstate travel and communications, and asserts that Epstein fulfilled the terms of that agreement.
Entities connected to both Mr. Weinberg and MR. EPSTEIN
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship