Jeffrey Epstein deal was ‘shameful,’ judges say — but not shameful enough to overturn

In a 2-1 decision, a federal appeals court has ruled against victims of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who were seeking to overturn the late multimillionaire’s secret 2008 federal plea deal in an effort to go after co-conspirators who received immunity under the agreement.

Despite calling the case “a national disgrace,’’ two judges with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said victim Courtney Wild was not entitled to confer with the government about the case, appear at Epstein’s sentencing or to even have been informed that he had received a non-prosecution agreement.

The lawsuit arose in 2008 after federal prosecutors and Epstein’s lawyers reached a deal to allow Epstein to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court, rather than face a 53-page federal indictment on sex trafficking charges. As part of the agreement, Epstein and an untold number of alleged co-conspirators were also given immunity, despite allegations that they had sexually abused some three dozen girls at his mansion in Palm Beach.

Wild, who was 14 when she was first sexually abused by Epstein, petitioned the federal court in 2008 to throw out the deal, arguing that it violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which gives victims certain rights, including the right to be informed by prosecutors how the case is being disposed of. In Epstein’s case, then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta agreed to keep the deal secret — and allowed it to be sealed — so that none of Epstein’s victims would be able to raise objections to it and possibly sway the judge until after Epstein had already been sentenced and sent to jail.

Epstein was re-arrested in New York in July 2019, and was found dead a month later in his Manhattan jail cell, where he was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges brought by the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. His death was ruled a suicide. The arrest came after the Miami Herald published an investigative series, Perversion of Justice, dissecting the case.

Epstein’s victims had hoped that federal prosecutors would prosecute Epstein’s alleged accomplices, identified in the agreement as Sarah Kellen Vickers, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff and Adriana Ross. The women were accused of helping Epstein recruit and schedule underage girls for sex. The deal, however, also mentions that it covers “unnamed’’ co-conspirators who have never been identified.

Tuesday’s court decision could impact whether it’s possible to charge the co-conspirators with crimes that they were given immunity for in Florida.

A lower court decision, in February 2019, concluded that prosecutors had violated the CVRA by intentionally misleading Epstein’s victims, and telling them that the criminal case was still moving ahead, when in fact, a deal had been signed months earlier. But the judge stopped short of voiding the agreement, which led to Tuesday’s ruling.

“Despite our 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 lawyers, we find ourselves constrained to deny her petition,’’ said judges Kevin Newsom and Gerald Bard Tjoflat, in writing for the majority.

They explained: “Because the government never filed charges or commenced criminal proceedings against Epstein, the CVRA was never triggered.’’

In dissenting, Judge Frank M. Hull pointed out that not only were criminal proceedings already well underway, but the government had assured Epstein’s lawyers they had “proof beyond a reasonable doubt’’ of his crimes — as evidenced by the 53-page draft federal indictment. Prosecutors inexplicably shelved the case upon reaching an agreement with Epstein’s lawyers. The only female on the panel, Hull chastised the majority for making a decision that essentially will allow prosecutors in the future to continue to make secret plea deals with wealthy criminals.

“The majority’s new blanket restriction eviscerates crime victims’ CVRA rights and makes the Epstein case a poster-child for an entirely different justice system for crime victims of wealthy defendants,’’ Hull said.

Wild was stunned, saying Tuesday that she had hoped the panel would recognize the significance of the case and use it to set a precedent that sends a message to prosecutors that they cannot make backroom deals with wealthy and powerful sex predators and child molesters.

“Justice has never been served in this case, and it’s a sad day because this is just another victory for Jeffrey Epstein, and other people committing crimes against women and children,’’ Wild said.

“Every time we get to the point that we are going toward the greater good, that maybe we will get justice, we get shut down.’’

One of her attorneys, Paul Cassell, said he would appeal the decision “en banc” to the entire 11th Circuit.

“For all the reasons given in the 60-page dissenting opinion, we strongly disagree with today’s ruling, which leaves victims like Ms. Wild without any remedy, even for victims like her who have been ‘affirmatively misled’ by federal prosecutors. We will be seeking a rehearing en banc before the full 11th Circuit.’’

The 120-page decision is rife with criticism from both sides on how federal prosecutors — and even the news media — handled the case.

“We are doubtlessly omitting many of the sad details of this shameful story. For our purposes, we needn’t discuss the particulars of Epstein’s crimes, or the fact that the national media essentially ignored for nearly a decade the jailing of a prominent financier for sex crimes against young girls,’’ the majority wrote.

“Today, the public facts of the case are well known — Epstein was eventually indicted on federal sex trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York, and in August 2019, while awaiting trial, he was found dead in his jail cell of an apparent suicide.’’

Hull disagreed with their assessment, writing: “while the majority laments how the national media fell short on the Jeffrey Epstein story, this case is about how the U.S. prosecutors fell short on Epstein’s evil crimes. Our criminal justice system should safeguard children from sexual exploitation by criminal predators, not revictimize them.’’