Jeffrey Epstein's Lawyers Balk at Possible June 2020 Trial in Sex-Trafficking Case
SDNY Judge Richard Berman set a tentative June 8, 2020, trial date, but didn't set that date in stone. The financier's lawyers said they needed more time, saying they expected more than 1 million pages of discovery materials.
July 31, 2019 at 12:12 PM
5 minute read
Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday pushed back against a proposed June 2020 trial date in their client's criminal sex trafficking case, saying they would need more time to defend a case that could include up to 1 million pages of discovery materials.
U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman of the Southern District of New York set an Oct. 28 date for oral arguments on discovery-related motions, but declined to schedule a date certain for trial in the case.
He did, however, exclude time for speedy trial considerations until June of next year. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks.
“Let's see where everybody is as the months go by, and then we'll see where everybody is for trial,” Berman said from the bench.
Wednesday's status conference was the first time Epstein has appeared in court since Berman denied his request for bail July 18.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe handled the hearing for prosecutors.
Epstein, who is being housed at Metropolitan Correctional Facility in Manhattan, was reportedly found on the floor of his cell last week, in what officials were treating as a possible suicide attempt. There was no mention about the incident at the hearing, and an attorney for Epstein declined to comment on his well-being after the proceeding.
Epstein's team last week appealed Berman's bail-denial ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Moe, arguing on behalf of the government, asked Berman on Wednesday for a firm trial date next June in order to avoid unnecessary delays.
“We think there's a public interest in bringing this case to trial as soon as possible,” she said, citing the time that has elapsed since the alleged conduct occurred between 2002 and 2005.
Epstein attorney Martin G. Weinberg, of Martin G. Weinberg P.C. in Boston, responded that the defense would need until September 2020 to review voluminous discovery to mount a defense that would raise constitutional issues linked to a nonprosecution agreement Epstein entered with Florida prosecutors a decade ago.
“Thirteen months sounds like the amount of time we'd ordinarily need to prepare a case of this scope and magnitude,” Weinberg said.
Berman said he normally defers to the defense on scheduling issues but observed that typically it is the government that asks for additional time to mount its case.
Both sides agreed to a discovery deadline of Oct. 31, with the exception of material that had been seized from devices in Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Moe said that information may be subject to privilege review protocol that could extend past the end of October.
Briefing on discovery-related motions is set to conclude by Oct. 11, and substantive pretrial motions were due by Feb. 24, with oral argument set for March 12.
Epstein, who is accused of exploiting underage girls at his homes in Florida and Manhattan, will meanwhile remain in federal custody after Berman rejected a proposed bail package that would have had Epstein wait out trial from his home on Manhattan's Upper East Side. In his ruling, Berman said Epstein's penchant for sex with underage girls appeared to be “uncontrollable,” and the financier's vast resources made him both a flight risk and a danger to the community.
According to an unsealed federal indictment, Epstein allegedly paid girls as young as 14 years old from 2002 to 2005 to perform nude or seminude massages, which became “increasingly sexual” in nature and typically ended with Epstein masturbating in front of his victims and molesting them. Prosecutors allege that Epstein also paid his victims hundreds of dollars to recruit other young girls into his network, allowing him to create “an ever-expanding web of new victims.”
Epstein appeared alongside counsel in Berman's courtroom, sitting silently at the defense table.
Read More:
Possible Suicide Attempt Unlikely to Slow Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Trafficking Case, Attorneys Say
'Uncontrollable' Jeffrey Epstein Denied Bail Ahead of Sex Trafficking and Conspiracy Trial
SDNY Prosecutors Blast Epstein's Proposed Bail Conditions, Urge Pretrial Confinement
Epstein Attorneys Argue for Home Detention, Lay Out 14 Conditions for Release
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
© 2025 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 AllAlston & Bird Adds M&A, Private Equity Team From McDermott in New York
4 minute readWeil Lures DOJ Antitrust Lawyer, As Government Lateral Moves Pick Up Before Inauguration Day
5 minute readLooking to the Future of the FDA and Its Impact on Drug Regulation in 2025
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Exploring the Opportunities and Risks for Generative AI and Corporate Databases: An Introduction
- 2Farella Elevates First Female Firmwide Managing Partners
- 3Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
- 4In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
- 5A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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