Event Details
September 16, 2019
Description
The district judge denied the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the CVRA case following Epstein's death.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| district judge | person | 12 | View Entity |
| Petitioners | person | 6 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
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.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Analysis of legal principles regarding the setting aside of a Non-Prosecution Agreement, specifically concerning Epstein's criminal prosecution and guilty plea, and the necessity of parties in contract challenges.
Date unknown • Southern District of Florida
The Second Circuit case, Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988), addressed the knowledge requirement for a lawyer to report a belief that an opposing witness had lied.
1988-01-01 • Connecticut
The Court issued an Order related to the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
2011-09-26
Dist. Ct. closes CVRA case and denies petitioners' request for remedies.
2019-09-16
Petitioners' petition for rehearing en banc granted.
2020-08-07
Petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the NPA.
2008-08-01 • Federal Court
The court ordered the government to provide petitioners with a copy of the NPA subject to a protective order.
2008-08-21 • Federal Court
The case of Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988) was decided, in which a lawyer was disciplined for not reporting a belief that an opposing witness lied in a deposition.
1988-01-01 • Connecticut
A court hearing where it was acknowledged that prosecutors had spoken to Petitioners about what happened to them. The transcript is cited as 'July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr.'
2008-07-11
Motion regarding unsealing of correspondence (mentioned in footnote).
2011-04-07 • Court
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event