DOJ-OGR-00000642.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document53_ Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 86 4 J8RSEPS1 1 relatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing 2 clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its 3 resolution. 4 Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some 5 help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors 6 who write that a hearing is let me tell you exactly what 7 they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for 8 transparency in a criminal case. [ think that is an odd 9 sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case. 10 They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks 11 to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, 12 the court would simply grant the request. As to that 13 statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of 14 law. 15 They go on to say the judge would not schedule a 16 hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. 17 If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the 18 victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to 19 attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role. 20 read it. It was incredulous. I'm still 21 incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a 22 suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these 23 suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case. 24 In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a 25 minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00000642