Jeffrey Epstein’s Accusers Cannot Challenge Plea Agreement — U.S. Appeals Court

A federal appeals court rejected a challenge by a Jeffrey
Epstein accuser to an agreement not to prosecute the financier, and
to shield his associates from criminal liability for aiding his
sexual abuses.

By a 7-4 vote, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
ruled on Thursday that Courtney Wild and other accusers lacked
standing under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act to disturb
Epstein’s 2007 nonprosecution agreement, though they had been kept
in the dark while it was being negotiated.

Judges in the majority said they were “constrained” to rule
against Wild, despite having “the profoundest sympathy for Ms. Wild
and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein’s
hands, only to be left in the dark – and, so it seems,
affirmatively misled – by government attorneys.”

Wild, now in her 30s, was 15 when Epstein first sexually abused
her, according to court papers.

“We are disappointed but not surprised,” her lawyers, Paul
Cassell and Bradley Edwards, said in a joint statement.

They pledged to press Congress for changes to ensure that “the
rights of crime victims are never again trampled on in this
disturbing way again.”

Epstein’s agreement with federal prosecutors in southern Florida
arose from his alleged sexual abuses at his Palm Beach mansion.

In exchange for immunity, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida
state prostitution charges and served just 13 months in jail. The
arrangement is now widely considered to have been too lenient.

A decision favoring Wild could have permitted accusers to
discuss with prosecutors why Epstein’s associates should be
charged. Prosecutors have said Epstein’s agreement applied only in
Florida.

Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and former Epstein
associate, has cited Epstein’s agreement in her defense against
criminal charges in Manhattan that she aided his abuses between
1994 and 2004.

Maxwell’s lawyers did not immediately respond on Friday to
requests for comment.

‘TRAVESTY’

Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote Thursday’s majority opinion.
Six of the seven judges in the majority were men, while the four
dissenting judges were women.

One dissenter, Circuit Judge Frank Hull, said the majority
opinion created a “two-tiered justice system” that exacerbated
disparities between wealthy defendants and others.

She said limiting protections of the victims’ rights law to the
period after people like Epstein are charged leaves federal
prosecutors “free to engage in the secret plea deals and deception
pre-charge that resulted in the travesty here.”

Last April, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit said
prosecutors had no obligation to disclose Epstein’s nonprosecution
agreement. It later set aside that ruling so the full appeals court
could consider the matter.

“I don’t see this as a loss,” Wild said in a statement provided
by her lawyers. “The judges agreed that the way were treated was
wrong. Without this lawsuit, that wrong would have been swept under
the rug and would have repeated itself.”

In opposing Wild’s appeal, the U.S. Department of Justice
nonetheless expressed regret for its handling of the matter, and
said Wild should be commended for shining a light on Epstein’s
misconduct.

Epstein’s agreement had been negotiated by prosecutors led by
then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta in Miami.

A Justice Department investigation found in November that Acosta
exercised “poor judgment” but did not recommend sanctions.

Shortly after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, Acosta resigned as
then-President Donald Trump’s labor secretary under pressure over
the agreement. Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail the
following month.

A federal appeals court rejected a challenge by a Jeffrey
Epstein accuser to an agreement not to prosecute the financier, and
to shield his associates from criminal liability for aiding his
sexual abuses.

By a 7-4 vote, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
ruled on Thursday that Courtney Wild and other accusers lacked
standing under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act to disturb
Epstein’s 2007 nonprosecution agreement, though they had been kept
in the dark while it was being negotiated.

Judges in the majority said they were “constrained” to rule
against Wild, despite having “the profoundest sympathy for Ms. Wild
and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein’s
hands, only to be left in the dark – and, so it seems,
affirmatively misled – by government attorneys.”

Wild, now in her 30s, was 15 when Epstein first sexually abused
her, according to court papers.

“We are disappointed but not surprised,” her lawyers, Paul
Cassell and Bradley Edwards, said in a joint statement.

They pledged to press Congress for changes to ensure that “the
rights of crime victims are never again trampled on in this
disturbing way again.”

Epstein’s agreement with federal prosecutors in southern Florida
arose from his alleged sexual abuses at his Palm Beach mansion.

In exchange for immunity, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida
state prostitution charges and served just 13 months in jail. The
arrangement is now widely considered to have been too lenient.

A decision favoring Wild could have permitted accusers to
discuss with prosecutors why Epstein’s associates should be
charged. Prosecutors have said Epstein’s agreement applied only in
Florida.

Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and former Epstein
associate, has cited Epstein’s agreement in her defense against
criminal charges in Manhattan that she aided his abuses between
1994 and 2004.

Maxwell’s lawyers did not immediately respond on Friday to
requests for comment.

‘TRAVESTY’

Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom wrote Thursday’s majority opinion.
Six of the seven judges in the majority were men, while the four
dissenting judges were women.

One dissenter, Circuit Judge Frank Hull, said the majority
opinion created a “two-tiered justice system” that exacerbated
disparities between wealthy defendants and others.

She said limiting protections of the victims’ rights law to the
period after people like Epstein are charged leaves federal
prosecutors “free to engage in the secret plea deals and deception
pre-charge that resulted in the travesty here.”

Last April, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit said
prosecutors had no obligation to disclose Epstein’s nonprosecution
agreement. It later set aside that ruling so the full appeals court
could consider the matter.

“I don’t see this as a loss,” Wild said in a statement provided
by her lawyers. “The judges agreed that the way were treated was
wrong. Without this lawsuit, that wrong would have been swept under
the rug and would have repeated itself.”

In opposing Wild’s appeal, the U.S. Department of Justice
nonetheless expressed regret for its handling of the matter, and
said Wild should be commended for shining a light on Epstein’s
misconduct.

Epstein’s agreement had been negotiated by prosecutors led by
then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta in Miami.

A Justice Department investigation found in November that Acosta
exercised “poor judgment” but did not recommend sanctions.

Shortly after Epstein’s July 2019 arrest, Acosta resigned as
then-President Donald Trump’s labor secretary under pressure over
the agreement. Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail the
following month.