EFTA00018867.pdf
183 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
8
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email with attached article/op-ed
File Size:
183 KB
Summary
This document is an internal USANYS email chain discussing a New York Law Journal op-ed by Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe. The article criticizes Judge Richard Berman's decision to hold a hearing and allow victims to speak regarding the dismissal of the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein following his suicide, arguing it violates procedural norms and the presumption of innocence. The email sender notes that Judge Berman addressed the article in court, pointing out that one of the authors is undisclosed counsel in a related civil case.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant (Deceased) |
Subject of the indictment dismissal; described as a 'true villain' who committed suicide.
|
| Richard Berman | Judge |
Ordered a hearing on the dismissal of the indictment and allowed victims to speak.
|
| Bruce Green | Author |
Co-author of the NY Law Journal article; Louis Stein Chair at Fordham Law School; former federal prosecutor.
|
| Rebecca Roiphe | Author |
Co-author of the NY Law Journal article; Professor at New York Law School; former ADA.
|
| Redacted Sender | USANYS Official |
Sent the email commenting on the judge's remarks.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2019-08-26
Publication of NY Law Journal article by Green and Roiphe.
NY Law Journal
2019-08-27
Hearing scheduled by Judge Berman regarding the dismissal of the indictment against Epstein.
Court
Judge Richard Berman
Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers
Victims
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (2)
By Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe
Judge Richard Berman ordered a hearing on the prosecutors’ decision to dismiss the indictment against Jeffrey Epstein
Key Quotes (5)
"The court believes that where, as here, a defendant has died before any judgment has been entered against him, the public may still have an informational interest in the process by which the prosecutor seeks dismissal of an indictment."Source
EFTA00018867.pdf
Quote #1
"This is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case."Source
EFTA00018867.pdf
Quote #2
"Epstein was hated by the #MeToo movement and conservatives alike."Source
EFTA00018867.pdf
Quote #3
"Second, this seems more like a show than a real hearing."Source
EFTA00018867.pdf
Quote #4
"The judge addressed it in his first ten minutes of addressing the court. He also mentioned that one of the authors — though not disclosed in the article— is counsel in one of the civil cases."Source
EFTA00018867.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (7,053 characters)
From: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
To: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Cc: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>, "[Redacted] (USANYS)
[Contractor]" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:58:16 +0000
To: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Cc: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>, "[Redacted] (USANYS)
[Contractor]" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Re: The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:58:16 +0000
The judge addressed it in his first ten minutes of addressing the court. He also mentioned that one of the authors
— though not disclosed in the article— is counsel in one of the civil cases.
— though not disclosed in the article— is counsel in one of the civil cases.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:35 AM, [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]> wrote:
The Judge in Epstein’s Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims
NY Law Journal
By Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe
8/26/19
By Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe
8/26/19
Last week, Judge Richard Berman ordered a hearing on the prosecutors’ decision to dismiss the indictment against
Jeffrey Epstein, who had been charged with multiple counts of sex trafficking and assault before he committed
suicide in a Manhattan prison. The judge announced that he intends to allow victims to speak at the hearing, which
is scheduled for August 27th. Berman stated: “The court believes that where, as here, a defendant has died before
any judgment has been entered against him, the public may still have an informational interest in the process by
which the prosecutor seeks dismissal of an indictment.”
Jeffrey Epstein, who had been charged with multiple counts of sex trafficking and assault before he committed
suicide in a Manhattan prison. The judge announced that he intends to allow victims to speak at the hearing, which
is scheduled for August 27th. Berman stated: “The court believes that where, as here, a defendant has died before
any judgment has been entered against him, the public may still have an informational interest in the process by
which the prosecutor seeks dismissal of an indictment.”
This is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case. Normally, if a prosecutor seeks to dismiss an
indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, the court would simply grant the request. The judge would not
schedule a hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. And if he did hold a hearing, whatever
informational interests the victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to attend the hearing, not
by giving them a speaking role.
indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, the court would simply grant the request. The judge would not
schedule a hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. And if he did hold a hearing, whatever
informational interests the victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to attend the hearing, not
by giving them a speaking role.
The procedural rules governing federal criminal cases do not provide for posthumous trials. If the accused dies
before trial, the federal court has no choice but to dismiss the indictment and end the case. Indeed, if an accused is
tried and found guilty but dies while his appeal is pending, the federal court must set the conviction aside, as if it
had never occurred. If a party to a civil lawsuit dies, his estate may step into his shoes. But in a criminal
prosecution, the defendant’s estate cannot be asked to answer for the defendant’s alleged crimes.
before trial, the federal court has no choice but to dismiss the indictment and end the case. Indeed, if an accused is
tried and found guilty but dies while his appeal is pending, the federal court must set the conviction aside, as if it
had never occurred. If a party to a civil lawsuit dies, his estate may step into his shoes. But in a criminal
prosecution, the defendant’s estate cannot be asked to answer for the defendant’s alleged crimes.
And so it is odd for the judge in this case to delay the inevitable dismissal, seemingly for dramatic effect. He has no
choice but to dismiss the charges. At the hearing he scheduled, Epstein’s lawyers will not oppose the prosecution’s
motion to dismiss the indictment. It is doubtful whether Epstein’s former lawyers could oppose the prosecution’s
motion even if they thought there were grounds to do so. Epstein’s defense lawyers no longer have authority to
speak on his behalf: the lawyer-client relationship ended with his death. Nor would the victims have any plausible
grounds to ask the judge to continue the proceedings.
choice but to dismiss the charges. At the hearing he scheduled, Epstein’s lawyers will not oppose the prosecution’s
motion to dismiss the indictment. It is doubtful whether Epstein’s former lawyers could oppose the prosecution’s
motion even if they thought there were grounds to do so. Epstein’s defense lawyers no longer have authority to
speak on his behalf: the lawyer-client relationship ended with his death. Nor would the victims have any plausible
grounds to ask the judge to continue the proceedings.
People are right to be both outraged and frustrated after Epstein’s suicide. He was a true villain, as both sides of
the political divide agree: Epstein was hated by the #MeToo movement and conservatives alike. His suicide denied
the public an accounting for his egregious crimes. It left us all without a clear sense of how this rich and powerful
EFTA00018867
the political divide agree: Epstein was hated by the #MeToo movement and conservatives alike. His suicide denied
the public an accounting for his egregious crimes. It left us all without a clear sense of how this rich and powerful
EFTA00018867
man evaded justice the first time, when he served a meager sentence, much of it on home arrest, for similar
charges.
charges.
That said, now that he is dead, the criminal justice system is not the place for Epstein to be called to account. The
fact that the public has an interest in learning more about the process, as Berman suggested, does not mean that
victims have the right to speak at a criminal proceeding scheduled for no obvious purpose but to give them a
forum. One might think that there is no harm done in giving victims a chance to express themselves in the
scheduled hearing, but that is wrong for two reasons.
fact that the public has an interest in learning more about the process, as Berman suggested, does not mean that
victims have the right to speak at a criminal proceeding scheduled for no obvious purpose but to give them a
forum. One might think that there is no harm done in giving victims a chance to express themselves in the
scheduled hearing, but that is wrong for two reasons.
First, the criminal justice system is designed to determine whether defendants are guilty of alleged crimes beyond a
reasonable doubt in a fair process in which both the prosecution and defendant participate. While many people
assume that Epstein is guilty of the crimes alleged in the indictment and worse, our courts and constitution require
that we presume him innocent until proven otherwise. Individuals charged with crimes must be allowed a chance to
confront their accusers and put the government to its burden. Frustrating as it is that the government will never get
the chance to present its case in a trial against Epstein, it is important to preserve the institutional structures
nonetheless. Faith in the outcomes of run-of-the-mill cases require as much.
reasonable doubt in a fair process in which both the prosecution and defendant participate. While many people
assume that Epstein is guilty of the crimes alleged in the indictment and worse, our courts and constitution require
that we presume him innocent until proven otherwise. Individuals charged with crimes must be allowed a chance to
confront their accusers and put the government to its burden. Frustrating as it is that the government will never get
the chance to present its case in a trial against Epstein, it is important to preserve the institutional structures
nonetheless. Faith in the outcomes of run-of-the-mill cases require as much.
It is often important to hear from victims—for example, at a trial where the accused contests his guilt or in a
sentencing hearing after a defendant is found guilty. But conducting a hearing on an uncontested question solely to
give victims a chance to tell their stories would be a rare if not unprecedented use of the courtroom—one that not
only veers from the norm but also weakens the institutional commitments that are necessary to ensure that all
individuals accused of a crime are afforded proper protection.
sentencing hearing after a defendant is found guilty. But conducting a hearing on an uncontested question solely to
give victims a chance to tell their stories would be a rare if not unprecedented use of the courtroom—one that not
only veers from the norm but also weakens the institutional commitments that are necessary to ensure that all
individuals accused of a crime are afforded proper protection.
Second, this seems more like a show than a real hearing. Judge Berman isn’t really trying to obtain information
about why the government is dismissing its case. We all know why. The defendant is no longer alive. So the hearing
would necessarily be serving a different purpose: It might serve as a kind of theater at which the public works
through its frustration and unresolved need for retribution. It might afford a collective catharsis for the victims
who may be allowed to tell their stories in court and for other victims of sexual assault. These are both noble goals,
but they are outside of the criminal justice system’s mandate.
about why the government is dismissing its case. We all know why. The defendant is no longer alive. So the hearing
would necessarily be serving a different purpose: It might serve as a kind of theater at which the public works
through its frustration and unresolved need for retribution. It might afford a collective catharsis for the victims
who may be allowed to tell their stories in court and for other victims of sexual assault. These are both noble goals,
but they are outside of the criminal justice system’s mandate.
We don’t necessarily have to give up the goal of a public accounting. Not entirely anyway. Prosecutors in the
Southern District of New York have indicated that they are not done with the investigation, leaving many to
speculate that Epstein’s co-conspirators will be charged. If so, the victims will get to tell their stories, at least
partially. In civil lawsuits and forfeiture actions, they may also have an opportunity for their day in court. But we
should not distort the criminal justice process by importing this perceived societal need into the criminal
courthouse when there is no proceeding in which hearing from the victims serves a legitimate criminal justice
purpose.
Southern District of New York have indicated that they are not done with the investigation, leaving many to
speculate that Epstein’s co-conspirators will be charged. If so, the victims will get to tell their stories, at least
partially. In civil lawsuits and forfeiture actions, they may also have an opportunity for their day in court. But we
should not distort the criminal justice process by importing this perceived societal need into the criminal
courthouse when there is no proceeding in which hearing from the victims serves a legitimate criminal justice
purpose.
Bruce Green is the Louis Stein Chair at Fordham Law School where he directs the Louis Stein Center for
Professional Ethics. He formerly served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Rebecca
Roiphe is a professor of law at New York Law School, where she serves as the co-dean for faculty scholarship. She
formerly served as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
EFTA00018868
Professional Ethics. He formerly served as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. Rebecca
Roiphe is a professor of law at New York Law School, where she serves as the co-dean for faculty scholarship. She
formerly served as an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office.
EFTA00018868
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document