UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Notice of Appeal From Magistrate's Order Denying Pre-Trial Detention Comes now the United States of America, by and through its undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this Notice of Appeal from the Order of United States Magistrate Judge U.S. District Court for the District of , entered on April , 2008, which denied the United States' request for pre-trial detention as to defendant Jeffrey Epstein. United States Magistrate Judge set a $ cash bond, with the following conditions: . The United States gave notice of its intent to appeal the bond order and asked the Magistrate Judge to stay execution of the bond pending the Court's determination of this appeal. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion and the defendant remains in custody. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), if "a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense . . . the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release." Accordingly, the United States hereby files this emergency motion with the District Judge assigned to the case for immediate revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order. THE CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT On April , 2008, a Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida returned a twenty-nine-count indictment charging defendant Jeffrey Epstein a with one count of conspiracy to use a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice nineteen minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; eight counts of knowingly, in and affecting commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining eight minors to engage in commercial sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1); twelve substantive counts of using a means of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, or entice twelve minors to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); one count of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e); and four counts of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Jane Does #1 through #19 were all minors at the time EFTA00229756 of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Jane Doe #11 was a resident of New York; the remaining Jane Does were all residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, at the time of their involvement with defendant Epstein. Count 1 carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. Counts 2 through 10 each carry a statutory maximum sentence of forty years' imprisonment. Counts 11 through 23 each carry a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment up to a maximum of thirty years' imprisonment. Counts 24 and 26 through 29 each carry a maximum of thirty years' imprisonment. THE FACTS OF THE OFFENSE The investigation of Jeffrey Epstein initially was undertaken by the City of Palm Beach Police Department in response to a complaint received from the parents of a 14-year-old girl, M., n from Royal Palm Beach. When M . and another girl began arguing at school because the other girl accused M . of being a prostitute, one of the school principals intervened. The principal searched M.'s purse and found $300 cash. The principal asked . where the money came from. Saige initially claimed that she earned the money working at "Chik-Fil-A," which no one believed. Saige then claimed that she made the money selling drugs; no one believed that either. Saige finally admitted that she had been paid $300 to give a massage to a man on Palm Beach Island. Saige's parents approached the Palm Beach Police Department ("PBPD") about pressing charges. PBPD began investigating the recipient of the massage, Jeffrey Epstein, and two of his assistants, and PBPD identified approximately 27 girls who went to Epstein's house to perform "sexual massages" (not including one licensed massage therapist) or who recruited girls to do the same. The girls' ages ranged from 14 years' old to 23 years' old. Some girls saw Epstein only once and some saw him dozens of times. The "sexual massages" performed also varied. Some girls were fully clothed while they massaged Epstein; some wore only their underwear; and some were fully nude. On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home two days later (10/20/05) to execute the search warrant, they found several items conspicuously missing. For example, computer monitors and keyboards were found, but the EFTA00229757 CPUs were gone. Similarly, surveillance cameras were found, but they were disconnected and the videotapes were gone. Nonetheless, the search did recover some evidence of value, including message pads showing messages from many girls over a two-year span. The messages show girls returning phone calls to confirm appointments to "work." Messages were taken by , and . The search also recovered numerous photos of Epstein sitting with naked girls whose ages are undetermined. Photographs taken inside the home show that the girls' descriptions of the layout of the home and master bedroom/bathroom area are accurate. PBPD also found massage tables and oils, the high school transcript of one of the girls, and sex toys. In sum, the PBPD investigation showed that girls from a local high school would be contacted by one of Epstein's assistants to make an appointment to "work." Up to three appointments each day would be made. The girls would travel to Epstein's home in Palm Beach where they would meet Epstein's chef and Epstein's assistant—usually M —in the kitchen. The assistant normally would escort the girls upstairs to the master bedroom/bathroom area and set up the massage table and massage oils. The assistant would leave and Epstein would enter the room wearing a robe or a towel. He would remove the clothing and lie face down and nude on the massage table. Epstein would then instruct the girl on what to do and would ask her to remove her clothing. After some time, Epstein would turn over, so that he was lying face up. Epstein would masturbate himself and fondle the girl performing the massage. When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. The girl was instructed to get dressed and to go downstairs to the kitchen while Epstein showered. Epstein would pay the girl—usually $200—and if it was a "new" girl, would ask for the girl's phone number to contact her in the future. Girls were encouraged to find other girls to bring with them. If a girl brought another girl to perform a "massage," each girl would receive $200. The PBPD investigation consists primarily of sworn taped statements from the girls. When PBPD began having problems with PBSAO, they approached the FBI. The investigation was formally presented to FBI and to me after PBSAO "presented" the case to a state grand jury and that grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with three counts of solicitation of prostitution. The State of Florida has since dismissed its charges after the United States initiated prosecution. ARGUMENT The defendant was arrested in the Northern District of Texas and, today, had a bond hearing. The United States sought to have the defendant detained pending trial based upon the presumption of detention as well as the defendant's risk of flight and danger to the community. EFTA00229758 This is a case where detention is presumed, both as to risk of flight and as a danger to the community. The law regarding this presumption is as follows: Where the Court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed one of the offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), [which includes the violations of 18 USC 2242 and 2243 as charged by the grand jury] a a statutory rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. Assuring a criminal defendant's appearance at trial is a legitimate government objective. Detaining adults who prey on children for the adult's sexual gratification or for the production of child pornography is also a legitimate government objective. One of the fundamental duties of government is public safety, including protecting children from sexual predators. . . . Once it is determined that the presumption applies, the defendant bears a limited burden of production to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight. Once a defendant has met his burden of production relating to these two factors, the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court. United States v. Abad , 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). In determining how much weight to accord the presumption after the defendant has come forward to meet his burden of production, the Second Circuit explains: A judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind that Congress has found that these offenders [who fall within the presumption] pose special risks of flight, and that "a strong probability arises" that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance. The judge of magistrate thus should consider those legislative findings among the other factors to be weighed in deciding whether a defendant should be detained. United States v. Martir , 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted) (discussing narcotics defendants). In United States v. Sciacca , one of the district judges in the Southern District of Florida summarized the Eleventh Circuit's approach to the analysis of the presumption as follows. Once it is determined that the statutory presumption applies based upon the crime charged, then "the defendant carries the burden of production to come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption." United State v. Quartermaine , 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990). Although the statutory presumption places a burden of production on a defendant, the burden of persuasion concerning the dangerousness [or risk of flight] remains on the government. United States v. King , 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). . . . The kind of evidence which a defendant must produce to satisfy his burden of production must "suggest that he . . . [is] either not dangerous or not likely to flee if turned loose on bail." United States v. Hurtado , 779 F.2d 1467, 1479 (11th Cir. 1985). If the defendant produces such evidence, the presumption does not disappear but "remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weigh[ed] along with other evidence relative to factors listed in section 3142 (g). United States 1 King , 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). Sciacca , (unpublished opinion), Court File No. 03-80164-Cr-Hurley, at pp. 4-5 (S.D. Fl. Feb. 25, 2004). Here, the defendant's blatant disregard of the order of the Florida court regarding his contact with the victim shows his continued dangerousness. In addition, there is evidence that he is having "romantic" chats with EFTA00229759 other minors, including one located in Texas. Furthermore, in considering a defendant's risk of flight, the Court must consider the defendant's ties to the community where the prosecution occurs, not merely his ties to the United States at large or the district in which he is arrested. See, e.g., United States v. Adipietro , 773 F. Supp. 1270 (W.D. Mo. 1991). The only tie that the defendant has to the Southern District of Florida is the victim in this case. He is not employed here, does not live here, and does not attend school here. The defendant's lack of ties to the Southern District of Florida and the amount of time that he will be facing on federal charges also are evidence of an incentive to flee. Count 1 of the indictment carries a five year mandatory minimum sentence, up to a maximum of 30 years, and Count 2 carries a maximum of 30 years. Both also carry a recommended supervised release term of life. The United States Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas considered these factors and determined that a $12,000 cash bond was sufficient to secure the safety of the community in the Southern District of Florida and to secure the defendant's appearance at trial. For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court revoke the order of the Magistrate Judge and order the defendant detained pending his intial appearance in the Southern District of Florida. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Florida Bar # West Palm Beach, FL 33401 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by facsimile this 21st day of April, 2006, to Heidi Peden, Esq. Counsel for Defendant. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY aE fi stein is named as a defendant in twenty-seven counts. currently is not one of the Jane Does referenced in the indictment. UA grand jury indictment provides the probable cause required by the statute to trigger the presumption. United States v. Hurtado , 779 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Quartermaine , 913 F.2d 910 (11th Cir. 1990). EFTA00229760