EFTA00164967.pdf

From: (CID) (FBI)" a To: " (LA) (FBI)" CID (FBI)" (FBI)" (FBI)" (CID) (FBI)" (CID) (FBI)" Subject: FW: Media - 08.10.20 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 10:53:33 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png FYSA From: (SecD) (FBI) < M> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 6:52 AM To: . (CID) (FBI) <M >; (CID) (FBI) •:: >; (CID) (FBI) <a; (CID) (FBI) < Cc: . (CID) (FBI) a>, (CID) (FBI) < (CID) (FBI) < >; . (CID) (FBI) < I>: (CID) (FBI) >; (CID) (FBI) <->; (CID) (FBI) < (CID) (FBI) < (CID) (FBI) Subject: RE: Media - 08.10.20 Good morning, FYSA. Thanks, EFTA00164967 Court To Reassess Legality Of Epstein's Plea Deal. The Washington Post (8/7, Zapotosky, 14.2M) reports the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit "will reconsider whether prosecutors broke the law in 2008 when they concealed from Jeffrey Epstein's victims a lenient non-prosecution agreement with the registered sex offender, deciding Thursday to set aside a ruling by one of its panels so the full court can take up the matter." The court "wrote that a majority of its judges had voted to rehear the case 'en banc' — or in front of the full court — and vacated the divided opinion of a three-judge panel that said prosecutors had not violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act." The Post adds, "The practical effect of whatever is decided is somewhat limited. Epstein, authorities say, killed himself last year while in federal custody awaiting trial on new sex trafficking allegations brought by federal prosecutors in Manhattan." However, the "decision could have broader implications for what prosecutors are required to tell victims about criminal investigations and prosecutions." EFTA00164968 • • . . EFTA00164969