Epstein Secrets

) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court. EFTA00177009 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, th

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contempo

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

an can the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States' Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quotia United States. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States I Langley, 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not co

RA rights to confer and fairness in cases involving white- collar and other wealthy defendants who commonly engage in pro-charge plea negotiations. Jeffrey Epstein's case illustrates my point. The U.S. Attorney's Office assigned specific attorneys, with AUSA Villafana being the lead prosecutor and primary attorn

rey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by the

ized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identif

speedy trial right "may attach before an indictment and as early as the time of arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge." ) United States v. Gouveia 467 U.S. 180, 190, 104 S. Ct. 2292, 2298, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984). 18 The Majority argues: "Although it's true, at least in the abstract, that the te

' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, that affect all crime victims in this Circuit. After over a decade of litigation, the Majority holds that Jeffrey Epsteie's victims were not authorized to bring this petition because the CVRA does not permit stand- alone suits, and, therefore, it should have been dismisse

pstein. In her mandamus petition, Ms. Wild asserts that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and executed a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with and to be treated fairly by the government's lawyers. We

ida to some extent). While he was in custody on these charges, Epstein was found dead. Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pristatement-attorney-general-william-p- barr-death-jeffrey-epstein. In June 2020,

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identifi

y judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment"? a United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188, 104 S. Ct. 2292, 2297, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). But a civil litigant has no constitutional ri

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, I I end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not participate in any way

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

n the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Langley, 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not c

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, Ann Marie Villafana, end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not partic

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

can the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States■. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States'. Langley, 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not co

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

n the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Langley, 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not c

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

n the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Langley, 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not c

reference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

etitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ e

n the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States v. Alvarado , 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gouveia , 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Langley , 848 F.2d 152 (11th Cir. 1988) (formal criminal prosecution does not

GING RIGHTS ATTACH UNDER THE CVRA ............... 90 A. A Test for Determining When Rights Attach.......0...000ccceeee 9] B. Applying the Test to the Epstein Case ..........ccccccceccccceceeeneees 93 C. Current Department Policy on Pre-charging Rights.................... 94 D. State Law Extension of Pre-ch

ll phases of the criminal justice process.° Congress drafted the CVRA, for example, broadly to make crime victims participants in criminal cases. The Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case demonstrates the importance of victim participation even before charges are filed. A. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS The c

? More importantly for purposes of this Article, the cases holding Tl See 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (e) (2012). 7 U.S. Const. amend. VI. ® United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190 (1984) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cob

for crime victims has arisen - specifically, the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case before a federal court in Florida. In that case, girls victimized by Epstein have argued that they should have been consulted about a federal nonprosecution agreement; Department attorneys have responded that because prosecuto

Congress sought to end that suffering by making victims meaningful participants in criminal cases. 3° C. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRE-CHARGING ISSUE: THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE Grven the potentially expansive scope of victims' rights under both state provisions and the CVRA, a critical question arises about how to appl

ion phase and an earlier investigative phase when "no prosecution is under way." !8° Senator Kyl, for 72 U.S. Const. amend. VI. 73 United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 190 (1984) (quoting United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cob