← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
The Law According to DOJ: Why Epstein’s Deal Was “Technically Legal" (Part 1)
00:13:00
The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA’s protections did not attach until formal federal charges...
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a look at a court transcript from 2008 where Brad Edwards was arguing that the government indeed broke the law when it comes to the cvra. So let's dive in. For the plaintiff, Bradley Edwards. For the defendants, Dexter Lee and Maria Vilafana. The court, the judge. Good morning. Please be seated. This is the case of Jane DOE, case number 0880736 CIV. Mara, may I have counsel state their appearances, please? Mr. Lee? Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. For the United States of America, we have Marie Vilafana, Assistant U.S. attorney, and Dexter Lee, Assistant U. S. Attorney. And we have seated in the front row FBI special agent becker Kendall and Jason Richards. Thank you, your honor. Brad Edwards. Good morning, your honor. Brad Edwards on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners are also in the courtroom today. This petition is styled on her behalf. The court. Good morning. All right, we're here on the petitioner's motion to enforce her rights as a victim under U.S. code 18, Section 13, 3771. I have received the petition, the government's response and the victim's reply, which was filed, I guess, this morning. So you want to proceed, counsel? Brad Edwards. Yes, your honor. You prefer me at the podium, judge Mara. It's easier for us to hear you, Brad Edwards. Your honor, as a factual background, Mr. Epstein is a billionaire that sexually abused and molested dozens and dozens of girls between the ages of 13 and. And 17 years old. And through cooperating victims, that evidence can be proven. Because of his deviant appetite for young girls, combined with his extraordinary wealth and power, he may just be one of the most dangerous sexual predators in u. S. History. This petitioner is one of the victims, and she is in attendance today. Another one of Mr. Epstein's victims is also in attendance today. She would be able to provide evidence that she provided that Mr. Epstein paid her to provide him with over 50 girls for the purpose of him to sexually abuse. Therefore, the undercurrents of the petition are clear. The plea bargain that was worked out for Mr. Epstein in light of the offense that he committed is clearly unfair to the point that if anybody looks at the information, it's unconscionable. The court. Well, I mean, is that for me? That's not my role. That's the prosecutor's role to apply. Would it not be? I can't force them to bring criminal charges. What do I have to do with that? Brad Edwards Okay. Judge Mara that may be your opinion, that may be your client's opinion. But I presume that the government is aware that that's your client's opinion. How does that change anything? BRAD EDWARDS that's my problem. I'm not sure that the government is aware that it's petitioner's opinion. And and that's why we're here today, just to enforce the Victims right Act under US Code 18, Section 3771, Crime Victims Rights Act. And all we are asking is to order that the plea agreement that been negotiated in this case. Judge Mara Cuts him off. How do you know there is a plea agreement? The plea agreement is with the state of Florida. Wasn't it? BRAD Edwards There was a state charge with one victim that I'm aware of and the plea agreement as to that one victim was 18 months in county jail. But along with that, the Palm beach county sheriff investigating this case was getting no action out of the local authorities and sent it to the FBI, the court. It was actually the Palm beach town of Palm Beach Police, not the sheriff's office. BRAD Edwards I'm sorry. Judge and that's why the FBI got involved because Michael Ryder wrote a scathing letter to the state attorney about Mr. Epstein receiving preferential treatment by the local authorities before the FBI took the case. They went behind the victim's back and this is in our motion without the victim's input and allowing her the right to meaningfully confer with the government, which is a right that she can assert at this time. They worked out a plea deal where if Mr. Epstein would plead to this other charge regarding another victim in the estate court case, they would agree not to prosecute him for all of the federal charges of what they were aware in federal court. MARA so that's already apparently taken place, Correct? BRAD EDWARDS I don't know if it's taken place. I'm not sure exactly what stage it's in. I know it's supposed to be attached at some point in time to a state court plea. JUDGE MARA hasn't he already pled guilty? BRAD if he did plead guilty, it's my understanding and belief that the agreement with the federal government and with the U.S. attorney's office wasn't signed on that day. So it's still my belief I could be wrong. But that the agreement hasn't been completed as of this time. The court. So let's assume it hasn't been completed. Mr. Edwards okay then. Petitioner would like the right to confer with Mara. Cuts him off you can go in the conference room. We've got the FBI agents, you've got the assigned prosecuting attorney, you have got the conference room, you've got your client. Go talk, confer, and then it's up to the government to decide what to do. Correct Brad Edwards In a way, your honor, that's very similar to what happened in Dean and PB case where there is a plea agreement negotiated, then the victim gets the right to confer. Mara it's already negotiated. What am I supposed to do? Edwards Order that the agreement that was negotiated is invalid and that it is illegal as it did not pertain to the rights of the victim. Mara I can order you into the conference room. Then the government can do what it chooses. It can agree to prosecute or can agree to going forward with the agreement it has already reached after consulting your client and in taking into consideration your client's views, decide to go forward anyway. I can't make them prosecute. All I can do at best is say, confer with the victim, Consider the victim's input before you make a decision or reconsider the decision you already made in view of the victim's input, if it's possible for you to do that. So if I invalidate the agreement, what's the best you can get? The right to confer Brad Edwards Exactly. That's all we can. Judge Mara so why can't you go into the conference room now and take as much time as you feel you need to confer Brad Edwards? Judge, at this time, I'd like to move or tennis to add the victim that's in the courtroom to this conference with the U.S. attorney's office. The court. So is that Jane Doe too? For the purpose of this Brad Edwards exactly, your honor. Judge Mara alright, let me hear from the government then. Mr. Lee Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. Let me update the court on the status of various matters. The agreement to defer prosecution to the state of Florida was signed and completed by December of 2007. Mr. Epstein's attorneys sought a higher review within the department of justice, and it took a number of months for that to come to fruition. When it came to fruition, he ended up pleading guilty on June 30, 2008 to two charges in state court, and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 18 months, with another 12 months of community control after the completion of his sentence. And he is currently incarcerated as we speak. You have two arguments, your honor. First, insofar as the right that they claim under 3771a5, the right to confer in the case. We respectfully submit that there was no case in federal court and indeed none was contemplated if the plea agreement was to be successfully completed, since it contemplated the state of Florida sentence on the criminal charges. So as long as certain conditions were met and certain federal interests were vindicated, the federal government was satisfied that this was an appropriate disposition. Insofar as the best effort. Your honor, we have cited the Attorney General's guidelines. The guidelines do say that you should normally advise victims of plea negotiations and the terms of the plea, but they recognize that there are times when there may not be appropriate or could cause some harm or prejudice. And they set out six factors which, which are to be considered non exhaustive factors. We have advised in the declaration of a USA Vilafana that when the subject of having Mr. Epstein concede that he would be convicted of enumerated offense for purpose of a cause of action under US Code 18, Section 2255, there was a rather strenuous objection from Mr. Epstein's counsel that the federal government was inducing some effort to either fabricate claims and enhance claims or embellish claims. And if this agreement ultimately could not be consummated, then we'd have a federal prosecution on our hands, and we did not want to be in a position of creating additional impeachment material. I can't say that the stand by Mr. Edwards that the arguments of inducement in a subsequent civil action can be made by any criminal victim. That is true. It's another thing for the inducement to have come before the prosecution arguing about the credibility and the veracity of the of the individual. That was a considerably strong point, in essence, in not discussing those terms with the victims as might ordinarily be done if those considerations did not exist. So first, your honor, we believe that 3771A5 does not apply. Judge MARA well, what about the language in the statute that suggests that a victim can bring a claim or seek enforcement of his or her rights or under the statute before the case is filed. What does that refer to, Mr. Lee? Your Honor, we believe that's a venue provision, essentially telling an individual if there is no exigent case, there is no case of United States versus so and so, then you seek to enforce your rights, then you can go in and do so in the court where the offense occurred. This is not saying necessarily that rights exist, but if you believe they exist, here is the place where you're going to have to lodge it. And the court will have to decide. Now there are certain of these eight rights accorded in 3771A that could come up before any charges filed. For instance, let's say somebody believes that the perpetrator of a crime is going to try to harm them or threaten them or intimidate them into not testifying or cooperating with the government. And of course no indictment has been returned. If an individual went to the government and believed that the individual had not acted appropriately, they can go to the district court and say I need to have my rights under 3771A1 enforced because those people are threatening me and the government hasn't done enough. That would be a situation. But we're talking really here about a 5 which is the right to consult in the case and we respectfully submit to that there is not a case until a charge has been filed. Judge MARA so what about the circuit case that was actually pending case had to do with a plea agreement in a pending case? Mr. Lee? Yes. The distinction between the Dean case and the instant case, your honor, is this. In Dean they had negotiated with BP Petroleum for a plea and it was always contemplated that there was going to be a federal prosecution. The distinction in this case was that there was already a pending state prosecution and the objective for both sides was to keep it in state court. And the federal government's objective was to ensure that there were sufficient safeguards in the state court proceedings and concessions made by Mr. Epstein so that federal interests, particularly a cause of action for damages for the victims of the sexual exploitation could be preserved. So that's the key distinction because there was no federal case, there was no federal criminal charge contemplate so long as the agreement could be reached the court. Alright, so they want me to invalidate your non prosecution agreement, Mr. Lee. Your Honor, we respectfully submit that 3771 does not grant authority of this court to do so. In the Dean case, for instance, your honor, there was a plea agreement that, that was entered into and district court of course entertained a plea and exercised its judicial discretion in terms of whether to accept it or not. The victims were encouraged to go to district court and say, you know, we didn't hear about this, we should have. And we object to it for the following reasons. The district court takes that into account. There is no plea agreement before this court. There will be no plea proceedings in this court. That was all done and in state court several weeks ago. So that's another basis for distinguishing Dean. All right folks, we're going to wrap up episode one right there. And in the next episode, dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.