Name: Appeals Court Orders New Jeffrey Epstein Hearing | Law & Crime
Brand: lawandcrime.com
SKU: lawandcrime-com-366
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Appeals Court Orders New Jeffrey Epstein Hearing | Law & Crime

preview

Sharecopy linkA group of judges with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered a relatively rare en banc hearing in a sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.&nbsp; The court’s Friday order withdraws and vacates issued by a panel of judges on the same court against the survivor.&nbsp; Now, all active judges will hear the case.The underlying claim in the matter of Courtney Wild is that the federal government violated the rights of Epstein’s survivors when prosecutors allowed Epstein to enter a “secret plea deal.”The appeals court’s original 2-1 decision denied Wild the right to challenge the government’s highly criticized actions in the Epstein case.“Despite our sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein’s hands, only to be left in the dark—and, so it seems, affirmatively misled—by government lawyers, we find ourselves constrained to deny her petition,” the original 2-1 ruling says. “It’s not a result we like, but it’s the result we think the law requires.”A majority of judges found enough wrong with the original panel’s decision to agree to take the case.of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure dictates when en banc hearings may be held:A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.Nine circuit judges took part in the decision to accept the case.&nbsp; A majority must have voted to take it; however, the breakdown is unknown.&nbsp; Participating were one judge appointed by George W. Bush (William Pryor), one appointed by Bill Clinton (Charles R. Wilson) two appointed by Barack Obama (Beverly B. Martin and Jill A. Pryor), and five appointed by Donald Trump (Kevin Newsom, Elizabeth L. Branch, Robert J. Luck, Barbara Lagoa, and Andrew L. Brasher).&nbsp; Since at least five judges were necessary to form a majority vote to take the case, by pure operation of statistics, at least two judges appointed by Republican presidents must have agreed to take the case; it is possible that none of the judges appointed by a Democrat agreed to take the case.Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan (Obama), Robin S. Rosenbaum (Obama), and Britt C. Grant (a former Brett Kavanaugh clerk appointed by Trump) recused themselves from the decision.The original panel which jettisoned the survivor’s chances at legal redemption was made up of Newsom and senior circuit judges Gerald Bard Tjoflat (Gerald Ford) and Frank M. Hull (Clinton).&nbsp; Hull was the lone dissenter in the original circuit court decision.In a statement to the Miami Herald, Wild’s attorneys they “look[ed] forward to arguing before the full Eleventh Circuit that [Epstein’s] ‘secret’ plea deal violates the Crime Victims’ Act . . . and should be rescinded.”“I had confidence this day would come,” Wild (according to the newspaper).&nbsp; “We have fought for 12 years, and as I’ve said before, no matter how many obstacles pile up, we will never give up fighting for what is right.”Read the order below.by on Scribd[image via the Florida Department of Law Enforcement]Have a tip we should know?Aaron Keller - Deputy Editor-in-ChiefPlease enable JavaScript to view the

Sharecopy linkA group of judges with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered a relatively rare en banc hearing in a sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.&nbsp; The court’s Friday order withdraws and vacates issued by a panel of judges on the same court against the survivor.&nbsp; Now, all active judges will hear the case.The underlying claim in the matter of Courtney Wild is that the federal government violated the rights of Epstein’s survivors when prosecutors allowed Epstein to enter a “secret plea deal.”The appeals court’s original 2-1 decision denied Wild the right to challenge the...

public

AKellerLawCrime

aaron-k

Law, Crime, LIVE Trials and Smart Legal Analysis.

lawandcrime.com

Credible

Speculation

Anecdotal Evidence

Generalization

Stacking the Deck

Appeal to Authority

Straw Man

Slippery Slope

Emotional Appeal

Red Herring

False Dilemma

Illogical

Moral Equivalency

Ad Hominem

Correlation w/o Causation

Semantics

Begging the Question

Faulty Analogy

Non Sequitur

Bandwagon

Dogmatism

Failing Occam's Razor

Biased

Pure Opinion

Hit Piece

Racial Bias

National Bias

Religious Bias

Financial Incentive

Political Agenda

Gender Bias

Misused Image/Video

Study Misinterpreted

Mistake

Misused Term

Science Misrepresented

Factual Error

Satire

Surface Level

Lack of Reliable Sources

Sensational

Not Credible

Investigative

Balanced

Well Sourced

Great Context

sports

entertainment

U.S.

international

business

technology

science

culture

politics

media

health

Appeals Court Orders New Jeffrey Epstein Hearing | Law & Crime

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS