'Public Hearings Are Exactly What Judges Do:' Epstein's Post-Death Proceeding
"I believe it is the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview, to ensure the victims in this case are treated fairly and with dignity," U.S. District Judge Richard Berman said in court Tuesday.
August 27, 2019 at 04:50 PM
5 minute read
At Tuesday's hearing in the Jeffrey Epstein criminal prosecution, a federal judge in Manhattan moved toward ending the case against the deceased financier, even as the judge openly defended his decision to let the alleged victims speak for as long as they wanted in a case that some lawyers argue should have been closed out with a short written order.
U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, a Southern District of New York senior judge, explained the reasoning behind his unique, and perhaps unprecedented, decision to allow the alleged victims to come before a packed Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday and give the equivalent of victim impact statements in a matter in which Epstein was never convicted, or even tried.
Epstein's death while in detention, ruled a suicide by officials, during the second week of August was "a rather stunning turn of events," Berman told a courtroom so densely packed that some onlookers stood along the walls.
And Epstein's demise thwarted, he said, the crucial part of the judicial criminal process in which "the accusers and the accused will come face to face."
Officially, Berman called the hearing Tuesday to address a nonprosecution motion lodged by Southern District of New York prosecutors in Epstein's case. Prosecutors are seeking to have the sex trafficking and conspiracy charges against Epstein—already a convicted sexual abuser of underage girls in Florida—dropped.
But the hearing that Berman decided to arrange—which some law professors argue went against criminal institutional structures devised for when a defendant has died—was more than a legal undertaking.
For nearly two hours Tuesday, some 15 victims came before the public and throngs of media and delivered their stories—statements of severe pain, of dreams extinguished, of psychological frustration and confusion, of yearning for closure—and, in effect, many of those victims for the first time, in their words, "found their voice."
Said one of them, as her voice choked and her hands gripped a podium in the courtroom's well: Because of his abuse of her, "he took away the chance I had at having a future, and the dreams I had for myself as a young girl."
"It's irreparable," she said of the pain, of the imprint he's had on her life, as she spoke to those gathered as a "Jane Doe" victim—and as now an adult.
It was those statements Tuesday that Berman also defended. During the first 15 minutes of the hearing, he sought to legally contextualize his decision to let the victims have their day. And he sought to speak to the need for victims to be heard.
"I believe it is the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview, to ensure the victims in this case are treated fairly and with dignity," Berman said.
Then, during a continuing series of statements, he added, "In my view, a public hearing is … preferred vehicle of resolution" for the Epstein case in New York, which prosecutors only lodged in July, years after Epstein was convicted of sex abuse crimes in Florida. (In that now-very controversial case, he was able to evade much state prison time and was released after 13 months.)
And Berman then took issue with a Law Journal column published Monday by law professors Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe.
The professors, arguing against Berman's hearing, had written, "But we should not distort the criminal justice process by importing this perceived societal need into the criminal courthouse when there is no proceeding in which hearing from the victims serves a legitimate criminal justice purpose."
The judge said he was "incredulous" about the column. He then noted that, at one point, the authors had said in their column, "This is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case."
He told the courtroom, in turn, "I think that's an odd statement."
And he soon added, "A few may differ on this [decision to have the victim-centered hearing], but public hearings are exactly what judges do."
As the hearing closed Tuesday—the stuffy, high-ceiling courtroom silenced after many stories of pain—Berman simply looked out over the crowd and quietly thanked the victims and their lawyers—from David Boies to Gloria Allred to Brad Edwards—for saying all that they did.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readConsumer Cleared to Proceed With Claims Against CVS 'Non-Drowsy' Medication, Judge Says
4 minute read'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250