HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016500.jpg

Attorney’s Office apparently disregarded or was not aware of in the proceedings before the lower
court. Id.

Not only are the appellate briefs subject to the strong presumption of openness that
applies to all judicial documents but there is also an intense public interest in disclosing these
specific documents because they will shed light on why the District Attorney’s Office initially
took the controversial decision to argue in favor of lenient treatment of Epstein.2 As Justice
Burger wrote, “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but
it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980). “Only a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free
press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people . . . .” N.Y.
Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (Black, J. concurring). In short, the
appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the Post can inform the public about the decisions
taken by the District Attorney’s Office with respect to Epstein so that the public can decide
whether there was anything careless or improper about those decisions.

The need for transparency and public understanding of why the District Attorney’s Office
handled the Epstein case the way it did is heightened by the fact that District Attorney Vance has
faced criticism over claims that his office gives favorable treatment to rich and powerful men

2 The presumption of openness is grounded in the U.S. and New York Constitutions as well as deeply-entrenched
common law rules that govern this Court. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 8 of the New York State Constitution both recognize the presumptive right of the public and press to access
and inspect court records. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986); Globe Newspaper Co. v.
Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); In re Associated Press v. Bell, 70 N.Y.2d 32, 517 N.Y.S.2d 444 (1987). In
addition to being well established under the federal and state constitutions, the right of access to court records “is
also firmly grounded in common law principles.” Danco Labs., Ltd. v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274
A.D.2d 1, 6, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419, 423 (1st Dep’t 2000) (citing inter alia Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 (1978)). See also People v. Burton, 189 A.D.2d 532, 535-36, 597 N.Y.S.2d 488, 491-92 (3d Dep’t 1993)
(“a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); In re Application of National Broad. Co., 635
F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”)
(citation omitted).

13
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016500