HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
1.69 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / motion to unseal court documents
File Size:
1.69 MB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal motion filed by 'The Post' (likely the New York Post) requesting the unsealing of appellate briefs related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text highlights that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office initially argued for Epstein to be adjudicated as a 'level one offender' (lowest risk) despite evidence of offenses against underage girls, before changing their position on appeal. The filing argues that the public has a right to know the justifications for this initial leniency and alleges potential prosecutorial missteps and favoritism.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Described as a 'powerful sex offender' and 'defendant' who committed multiple offenses against underage girls. The te...
|
| District Attorney | Prosecutor |
Manhattan District Attorney. Accused of changing legal positions regarding Epstein's offender status and potential 'p...
|
| Underage Girls | Victims |
Victims of the defendant's offenses; their anonymity is protected under Civil Rights Law section 50-b.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Manhattan District Attorney’s Office |
Prosecuting body involved in the initial lenient request and subsequent appeal.
|
|
| The Post |
Media organization (likely The New York Post) filing the motion to unseal the briefs.
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body receiving this motion (likely New York State Court based on citations).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489' indicating this document was part of a congressional investigation.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Manhattan District Attorney', 'New York Civil Rights Law', and legal citations (N.Y.S.2d).
|
Relationships (2)
The Post respectfully requests an order... directing the District Attorney to provide the Post with copies
District Attorney's arguments on appeal... request for lenient treatment of Epstein
Key Quotes (4)
"Epstein 'should be adjudicated a level one offender' (i.e., lowest risk)"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
Quote #1
"defendant committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
Quote #2
"The public has the right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office switched its legal position on appeal"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
Quote #3
"documents sought by the Post are highly relevant to allegations of prosecutorial missteps and favoritism by the office of the District Attorney in a case involving a powerful sex offender"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,201 characters)
The District Attorney’s position on appeal, however, was in stark contrast to what it argued in
proceedings before the lower court, which was that Epstein “should be adjudicated a level one
offender” (i.e., lowest risk) in spite of the damning evidence establishing that “defendant
committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls.” Id. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at
240. The public has the right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office switched its
legal position on appeal and what justifications it advanced in its brief to explain its initial
request for lenient treatment of Epstein. Similarly, the briefing submitted by Epstein, which
confronted the District Attorney’s arguments on appeal, may shed additional light on why the
District Attorney changed course on appeal. Despite the obvious public interest in knowing this
information, the briefs were filed wholly under seal pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law
section 50-b – which protects the anonymity of sex abuse victims – and not a single word of
either party’s briefs is available to the public.
proceedings before the lower court, which was that Epstein “should be adjudicated a level one
offender” (i.e., lowest risk) in spite of the damning evidence establishing that “defendant
committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls.” Id. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at
240. The public has the right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office switched its
legal position on appeal and what justifications it advanced in its brief to explain its initial
request for lenient treatment of Epstein. Similarly, the briefing submitted by Epstein, which
confronted the District Attorney’s arguments on appeal, may shed additional light on why the
District Attorney changed course on appeal. Despite the obvious public interest in knowing this
information, the briefs were filed wholly under seal pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law
section 50-b – which protects the anonymity of sex abuse victims – and not a single word of
either party’s briefs is available to the public.
Since the District Attorney’s Office has made it clear that it will not release any portion
of any of the appellate briefs filed in this action without clear instructions from this Court, the
Post respectfully requests an order unsealing the briefs and directing the District Attorney to
provide the Post with copies redacted only to the extent necessary to preserve the anonymity of
victims. As a threshold matter, the Rules of this Court and the common law both guarantee the
Post’s right to move this Court for an order unsealing court documents (POINT I, supra). And
the Post easily demonstrates the “good cause” required to overcome sealing of documents under
section 50-b. Simply put, the presumption of openness that governs judicial proceedings in this
State is at its zenith because the documents sought by the Post are highly relevant to allegations
of prosecutorial missteps and favoritism by the office of the District Attorney in a case involving
a powerful sex offender (POINT II, supra). The Post is mindful, however, of the importance of
of any of the appellate briefs filed in this action without clear instructions from this Court, the
Post respectfully requests an order unsealing the briefs and directing the District Attorney to
provide the Post with copies redacted only to the extent necessary to preserve the anonymity of
victims. As a threshold matter, the Rules of this Court and the common law both guarantee the
Post’s right to move this Court for an order unsealing court documents (POINT I, supra). And
the Post easily demonstrates the “good cause” required to overcome sealing of documents under
section 50-b. Simply put, the presumption of openness that governs judicial proceedings in this
State is at its zenith because the documents sought by the Post are highly relevant to allegations
of prosecutorial missteps and favoritism by the office of the District Attorney in a case involving
a powerful sex offender (POINT II, supra). The Post is mindful, however, of the importance of
2
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016489
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document