Jeffrey Epstein Non‑Prosecution Deal Involving U.S. Attorney’s Office and Potential Political Pressure

68 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104 criminal charges? Or do they attach at some earlier point in the process? Does v. United States, a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, usefully illustrates the issue.*° In that case, the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southern District of Florida developed considerable evidence that Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire with extensive political and social connections,*! had sexually molested more than thirty young girls between 2001 and 2007 at his West Palm Beach mansion.“ The U.S. Attorney’s Office entered into contentious plea negotiations with Epstein over how the case should be resolved. The prosecutors initially sought a resolution that would have required Epstein to plead guilty to at least a felony sex offense. After pressure from Epstein, for reasons that have never been clearly explained,** the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to enter into a nonprosecution agreement. Under the agreement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed not to prosecute him and, in exchange, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two state felonies for soliciting prostitution with a minor. After entering those guilty pleas, Epstein was sentenced to only eighteen months in state jail.+ No federal charges were ever filed and 4° Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, two of the authors of this Article (Cassell and Edwards) are co-counsel for the victims in this case. The statement of the facts in this Article draws heavily on the victims’ allegations as they have detailed in their pending motion for summary judgment in the case. See Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2’s Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies at 3-23, Does, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) [hereinafter Jane Doe Motion] (providing fifty-three proposed facts in the case). The U.S. Attorney’s Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States’ Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2’s Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies at 34-43, Does, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) [hereinafter United States’ Response]. As of this writing, Epstein has declined to intervene in the case to dispute the allegations. 4l See, e.g., Paul Harris, Prince Andrew’s Link to Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein Taints Royalty in US, GUARDIAN (Mar. 12, 2011), http://goo.gl/Ol4vAE; Landon Thomas Jr., Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery, N.Y. MAG., http://goo.gl/11Cayc (last visited Nov. 26, 2013). * See Jane Doe Motion, supra note 40, at 3-4; Abby Goodnough, Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex Case, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 3, 2006, at A19. 43 The U.S. Attorney responsible for the plea deal later revealed that after negotiations started, “[w]hat followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by Epstein. Letter from R. Alexander Acosta, former U.S. Att’y, to Whom It May Concern (Mar. 20, 2011), reprinted in Conchita Sarnoff, Behind Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s Sweetheart Deal, DAILY BEAST (Mar. 25, 2011, 3:17 AM), http://goo.gl/kyveiF. Acosta, however, claimed that the pressure did not influence the ultimate disposition of the case. Id. 44 Landon Thomas Jr., From Paradise to County Jail: A Billionaire Financial Adviser Will Serve 18 Months in Sex Case, N.Y. TIMES, July 1, 2008, at C1. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014047