US: Once-Secret Jeffrey Epstein Sex Offender Deal Must Stand
Jack Scarola, an attorney for two victims who challenged the agreement, said "the government has failed to comply with its own regulations" in the case.
June 25, 2019 at 12:29 PM
4 minute read
A once-secret plea deal reached a decade ago with wealthy convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein must stand, despite objections from many of his victims who were teenagers at the time, federal prosecutors said in a new court filing.
Prosecutors said a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act does not allow for the agreement to be voided. Some of the victims claim the deal, known as a nonprosecution agreement or NPA, should be thrown out at least partially because they were not consulted as required under that law.
“The past cannot be undone; the government committed itself to the NPA, and the parties have not disputed that Epstein complied with its provisions,” prosecutors said.
Jack Scarola, an attorney for two victims who challenged the agreement in West Palm Beach federal court, said Tuesday that “the government has failed to comply with its own regulations” in the case.
“Congress did not contemplate the extraordinary circumstances of this conspiracy between the government and a serial child molester,” Scarola said in an email.
The 2008 deal ended a federal investigation that could have landed Epstein, now 66, in prison for life. Instead, he was allowed to plead guilty to lesser state charges that resulted in a 13-month jail sentence and required financial settlements to dozens of his victims. He also had to register as a sex offender.
The agreement was overseen by former Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who is now President Donald Trump's labor secretary. In the face of intense criticism, Acosta has defended the plea deal as appropriate under the circumstances.
It will be up to U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra to decide what to do. The victims have a July 8 deadline to respond to the Justice Department's filing.
Although the Justice Department supports the Epstein agreement, Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jill Steinberg and Nathan Kitchens acknowledged in the filing that the failure to consult victims “fell short of the government's dedication to serve victims to the best of its ability.”
They asked that Marra approve a Justice Department proposal that would allow victims to speak in a public court hearing about the Epstein agreement, if they wish. They also proposed that a government representative be chosen to meet with any victims privately to discuss the deal, and that additional training be required for prosecutors in the Miami-based federal district.
These actions, they wrote, “are necessary to give a voice to victims of Jeffrey Epstein and an opportunity for them to understand why the government resolved the case in the manner it did.”
The prosecutors added that some victims said in recent meetings that they want to remain anonymous. The prosecutors also said voiding the plea deal might jeopardize the restitution money that Epstein paid them under its terms. Steinberg and Kitchens work in the Atlanta U.S. attorney's office, which was appointed to handle the case in March.
Epstein is a wealthy hedge fund manager who once counted as friends former President Bill Clinton, Great Britain's Prince Andrew, and Trump, who was his neighbor in Palm Beach at the time.
Court documents show at least 40 underage girls were brought into Epstein's Palm Beach mansion for what turned into sexual encounters. Authorities say he had female fixers who would look for suitable girls, some local and others recruited from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world.
Epstein also has maintained a home in New York City, a ranch in New Mexico and a private Caribbean island. Some of the girls were brought to those places as well, court documents show.
Curt Anderson reports for the Associated Press.
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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