DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
1020 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1020 KB
Summary
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his attorneys, his indictment on federal charges in New York, his subsequent death, and the ...
|
|
| Acosta |
Petitioners requested a meeting with him as part of the remedies sought.
|
|
| Villafaña |
Petitioners requested a meeting with her and her supervisors as part of the remedies sought.
|
|
| Wild | Appellant |
Appealed the district court's rejection of requested remedies by filing a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
|
| Jane Doe 1 | Petitioner |
Mentioned in a footnote as a co-submitter of a document on proposed remedies.
|
| Jane Doe 2 | Petitioner |
Mentioned in a footnote as a co-submitter of a document on proposed remedies.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | Government agency |
Mentioned in relation to positions taken in correspondence, and for whom training was requested and provided.
|
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Judicial body |
The court where Wild filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
|
| The Department’s Office of Legal Programs | Government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote for providing training to the USAO.
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia | Government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as handling the litigation at a certain point.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2019-05-23
Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 submitted a document on proposed remedies.
2019-09-16
The district judge denied the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the CVRA case following Epstein's death.
District Judge
Petitioners
2020-01-10
The Department’s Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims’ Rights in the Federal System to the USAO.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Epstein's indictment on federal charges and prosecution.
|
|
|
Referenced as the location where the government argued the CVRA was not triggered because no criminal charges were br...
|
|
|
The U.S. Attorney's Office for this district was handling the litigation at one point.
|
Relationships (3)
The document mentions 'Epstein's attorneys' receiving correspondence from the USAO.
Wild appealed a court decision against her, and the government filed a brief arguing against her position.
Petitioners (victims)
→
Adversarial (legal)
→
the government
Petitioners sued the government for violating their rights under the CVRA and requested multiple remedies, which the government opposed and the court denied.
Key Quotes (7)
"it had had obligations to notify the victims."Source
— the government
(An acknowledgement made in correspondence with Epstein's attorneys.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #1
"rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government’s violation of Petitioners’ rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot."Source
— District Judge
(The court's reasoning for denying the petitioners' motion for remedies, citing Epstein's death.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #2
"fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims."Source
— The court
(Stated by the court when not ordering the government to take corrective measures.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #3
"[a]lthough unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation."Source
— The court
(The court's reasoning for denying the petitioners' request for attorneys' fees, finding the government did not act in bad faith.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #4
"regret[] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past."Source
— the government
(Expressed in a responsive brief regarding communication with Wild.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #5
"as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case"Source
— the government
(The government's argument in its responsive brief to Wild's appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #6
"the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought."Source
— the government
(The government's argument explaining why CVRA obligations did not apply in the Southern District of Florida.)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,035 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page16 of 217
SA-270
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 270 of 348
SA-270
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 270 of 348
the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with Epstein’s attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that “it had had obligations to notify the victims.” The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission of the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta, Villafaña, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials; training for USAO employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys’ fees.387
Following Epstein’s indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioners’ motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein’s death “rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government’s violation of Petitioners’ rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot.”388 The court did not order the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it “fully expects the Government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims.”389 The court also denied the petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, “[a]lthough unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation.”
On September 30, 2019, Wild appealed the district court’s rejection of the requested remedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for Wild and “regret[] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past.”391 Nevertheless, the government argued that, “as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case” and thus, “the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought.”392 The government conceded, however, that with regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted, “[p]etitioner and other Epstein
---
387 Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019).
387 Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019).
388 Doe, Opinion and Order (Sept. 16, 2019). Among other things, the court rejected the petitioners’ contention that it did not address whether the government had violated the victims’ CVRA right to be treated with fairness and to receive fair notice of the proceedings, noting that “[t]hese rights all flow from the right to confer and were encompassed in the Court’s ruling finding a violation of the CVRA.”
389 The Department’s Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims’ Rights in the Federal System to the USAO on January 10, 2020.
390 See In re Wild, No. 19-13843, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (Sept. 30, 2019).
391 Wild, Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime Victims Rights Act at 14 (Oct. 31, 2019). As previously noted, at this point, the litigation was being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
392 The government also noted that although the CVRA was amended in 2015 to include a victim’s right to be notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements, “the amendment did not extend to non-prosecution agreements” which, unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements, do not require court involvement.
244
DOJ-OGR-00021446
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document