What is document EFTA00020119?

This is an email dated August 22, 2019 from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys. It discusses civil forfeiture matters and requests the return or destruction of discovery materials before the upcoming nolle prosequi hearing to dismiss the case following Epstein's death.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein (the defendant), Martin Weinberg (defense attorney from Boston), and Reid Weingarten (lead defense attorney at Steptoe & Johnson LLP). Both Weinberg and Weingarten were prominent criminal defense lawyers who represented Epstein in his 2019 sex trafficking case and later publicly questioned the official suicide ruling.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals the procedural steps taken to close out Epstein's criminal case after his death. It shows the government was pursuing civil forfeiture (seizure of assets) alongside the criminal prosecution and was concerned about properly securing discovery materials under the protective order—likely to protect victim identities and sensitive evidence. The hearing referenced took place on August 27, 2019, when Judge Berman heard from 23 victims before formally dismissing the case on August 29.

What happened at the August 27, 2019 hearing mentioned in this email?

The hearing allowed 23 of Epstein's victims to address the court before the case was formally dismissed. Despite Epstein's death making prosecution impossible, the judge provided victims an opportunity to speak. The court entered the nolle prosequi order on August 29, 2019, though prosecutors emphasized the investigation into potential co-conspirators would continue—ultimately leading to Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution and conviction in December 2021.

What is document EFTA00020119?

This is an email dated August 22, 2019 from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys. It discusses civil forfeiture matters and requests the return or destruction of discovery materials before the upcoming nolle prosequi hearing to dismiss the case following Epstein's death.

Who is mentioned in this document?

The document mentions Jeffrey Epstein (the defendant), Martin Weinberg (defense attorney from Boston), and Reid Weingarten (lead defense attorney at Steptoe & Johnson LLP). Both Weinberg and Weingarten were prominent criminal defense lawyers who represented Epstein in his 2019 sex trafficking case and later publicly questioned the official suicide ruling.

What does this document reveal?

The document reveals the procedural steps taken to close out Epstein's criminal case after his death. It shows the government was pursuing civil forfeiture (seizure of assets) alongside the criminal prosecution and was concerned about properly securing discovery materials under the protective order—likely to protect victim identities and sensitive evidence. The hearing referenced took place on August 27, 2019, when Judge Berman heard from 23 victims before formally dismissing the case on August 29.

What happened at the August 27, 2019 hearing mentioned in this email?

The hearing allowed 23 of Epstein's victims to address the court before the case was formally dismissed. Despite Epstein's death making prosecution impossible, the judge provided victims an opportunity to speak. The court entered the nolle prosequi order on August 29, 2019, though prosecutors emphasized the investigation into potential co-conspirators would continue—ultimately leading to Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecution and conviction in December 2021.

EFTA00020119

An email from an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York to Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys regarding discovery procedures following Epstein's death in August 2019.

This August 22, 2019 email from a federal prosecutor to Epstein's defense attorneys Martin Weinberg and Reid Weingarten addresses two matters: a follow-up call about civil forfeiture proceedings and, critically, instructions for handling discovery materials before the nolle prosequi hearing scheduled for Tuesday (August 27, 2019). The prosecutor requests that the defense either return all discovery materials to the government or certify that all copies have been securely destroyed, in accordance with the protective order in the case. This document captures the administrative wind-down of the criminal prosecution following Epstein's death on August 10, 2019.

Key Highlights

•Sent just 12 days after Epstein's death, documenting the case dismissal process
•Reveals civil forfeiture proceedings were being pursued alongside the criminal case
•Shows the government's concern about securing sensitive discovery materials containing victim information
•Names Reid Weingarten and Martin Weinberg, Epstein's high-profile defense attorneys who later publicly questioned the suicide ruling

Frequently Asked Questions

Books for Further Reading

Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

Julie K. Brown

Investigative journalism that broke the Epstein case open

Filthy Rich: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

James Patterson

Bestselling account of Epstein's crimes and network

Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Bradley J. Edwards

Victims' attorney's firsthand account

Document Information

Bates Range

EFTA00020119

Pages

Document Content

Page 1 - EFTA00020119

From: la" To: "'Martin G. Weinberaer, Michael" < la>, "Weingarten, Reid" Subject: RE: U.S. v. Epstein call Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:09:19 +0000 Marty, I got your voicemail from this morning regarding follow-up on civil forfeiture—we have a meeting at 12:30 that I expect will go approximately 15 minutes and will plan to give you (or Mike, to conference you in) a call after that, so approximately around 12:45 — 1:00. Separately, based on the expected nolle order, and in connection with the protective order in this case, in advance of the hearing on Tuesday can you please either return to the Government all discovery you received in this case and certify that any copies have been security destroyed or deleted, or, alternatively, simply certify that all discovery received has been security destroyed or deleted? (As to the second option, that is to say that you do not need to make additional copies of electronic materials to formally "return" them to us if it is more efficient to simply delete and destroy the existing electronic copies you have.) We want to be able to advise the Court on Tuesday that there are no outstanding discovery obligations on either side based in connection with the protective order. Thank you, Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of New York EFTA00020119