UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JSRsEPS1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Before: x 19 CR 490 (RMB) New York, N.Y. August 27, 2019 10:30 a.m. HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN, District Judge APPEARANCES GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: Assistant United States Attorneys MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC Attorney for Defendant BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: REID WEINGARTEN MICHAEL MILLER SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103908 JaRsEPS1 (Case called) THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be seated. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So just some housekeeping. We have a podium here for both attorneys and others who may be speaking, and so we would like you, attorneys and others who are speaking, to come up to the podium. This room is a little cavernous. We thought the podium over there would be more comfortable. For starters, and for this you don't have to go up to the podium, if you could just indicate your names. This table in front to my left, your right, are defense counsel, and that table to my right, your left, are government attorneys. If we could just ask the attorneys to introduce themselves. MS. : Good morning, your Honor. and for the government. Joining us at counsel table are Special Agent of the FBI and Detective of the NYPD. MR. WEINGARTEN: Good morning, your Honor. Reid Weingarten. MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. MILLER: Good morning, your Honor. Michael Miller from Steptoe & Johnson on behalf of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103909 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 defendant. THE COURT: Great. Again, good morning to all of you. This hearing that we're having today considers the government's motion to dismiss the indictment in this case. I must add that it also serves as the opportunity for me to thank all of you, the attorneys and the victims who are here today, among others, for your very hard work and dedication in this case. We also have here today the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who has also been very helpful and indispensable in this matter. The news on August 10, 2019, that Jeffrey Epstein had been found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, at the MCC, was certainly shocking. Most of you, and myself for that matter, were anticipating that the next steps in this case would be defense motion practice, including a motion to dismiss, followed by a trial on the merits before a jury, if the motions were not successful, and through which the accusers and the accused would come face everyone to get their day in court. Mr. obviously means that a trial in which he to face, allowing Epstein's death is a defendant cannot take place. It is a rather stunning turn of events. The government's motion to dismiss the indictment because of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103910 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its resolution. Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case. They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, the court would simply grant the request. As to that statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of law. They go on to say the judge would not schedule a hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. 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. I read it. It was incredulous. I'm still incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case. In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103911 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today, I don't think it would be very significant. On a somewhat more serious note, don't quote me on this, but it is my understanding that one of the authors of that article is himself counsel in one of the Epstein -related cases. I was surprised to learn that very recently. I'm certain it is true. I was also surprised that that aspect was not disclosed in the Law Journal. But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading. I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was saying that the government's motion is relatively straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly, nevertheless, the preferred vehicle for its resolution. I'm still convinced of that. A few may differ on this, but public hearings are exactly what judges do. Hearings promote transparency and they provide the court with insights and information which the court may not otherwise be aware of. The victims have been included in the proceeding today both because of their relevant experiences and because they should always be involved before rather than after the fact. Indictment 19 CR 490 charges Jeffrey Epstein with sex trafficking and with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The U.S. Attorney, on August 19, 2019, requested that the court approve the government's proposed order of nolle prosequi. 1 think that's a rough justice. That means nolle prosequi, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103912 J8RsEPS1 discontinuance by the prosecutor of all or of a part of the case that he or she has commenced. The government in its motion concludes that Epstein's 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 death abates these proceedings. In accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b), I determined to hold a public hearing and opportunity That is the I notified the victims that they would be given the to be heard before any final action on the motion. purpose also of today's proceeding. I would do that every time. Also, recognized that Epstein, Mr. Epstein died before any judgment of conviction against him had been obtained, and that the government's proposed order appears, in form and substance, to be appropriate. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) codifies the nolle prosequi process. It is entitled dismissal, and it states in relevant part that the government may, with leave of the court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint, and that leave of the court proviso, you should know, was added as an amendment to the original draft of Rule 48, which had originally provided for automatic dismissal upon the motion of the government. This proviso, in my judgment, is clearly directed toward an independent judicial assessment of the public interest in dismissing the indictment. Thus, even whereas, in this case, the standard of court review is deferential, the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103913 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 court must still make its own independent determination. A conclusory statement from the government that dismissal is appropriate does not satisfy the court's obligations. It is also, in my view, required that the court consider the views of the victims in the case at the hearing and before deciding whether to grant the motion. This is being done here both as a matter of law and as a measure of respect that we have for the victims' difficult decisions to come forward in this matter. In a case called United States v. Heaton, H-e-a-t-o-n-, the government filed a Rule 48 motion for leave to dismiss a charge against a defendant who allegedly committed a sexual offense against a young victim. Although I should point out, very importantly, that that defendant was still alive, which distinguishes it from our case. Nevertheless, I think it is irrelevant because in evaluating the Rule 48 motion, then district Judge Paul G. Cassell -- who is now a law professor at the University of Utah and is regarded to be a noted expert in victims' rights -- concluded that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims have broad rights that extend to a court's decision whether to grant a government motion to dismiss under Rule 48. I completely share that viewpoint in these circumstances, even though the facts of our case, as I said, are somewhat different from those in Heaton. I believe it is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103914 8 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview, to ensure that the victims in this case are treated fairly and with dignity. The fundamental substantive principle which applies in considering the government's motion is termed the rule of abatement. This principle originated in the English common law. It was adopted by most U.S. federal courts, but more recently, it has faced some appropriate criticism. The rule of abatement is best explained in the Second Circuit case of U.S. v. Wright. In that Wright case, two defendants had pled guilty to embezzlement and tax evasion. Both defendants appealed, but one of the defendants died while his appeal was pending in the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals rule that under the rule of abatement, the judgment of conviction against the deceased defendant was required to be vacated and the indictment was to be dismissed. The Wright court held that when a convicted defendant dies while his direct appeal as of right is pending, his death abates not only the appeal, but also proceedings had during the course of the prosecution. The Second Circuit incidentally has also held that when a criminal conviction abates upon the death of a defendant, any restitution ordered as a result of that conviction must also abate, and it is also ruled the same with respect to associated forfeiture orders. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103915 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This latter application of the rule of abatement regarding forfeiture has not been universally accepted among federal courts, but it certainly is the law in this circuit. Some of you may be interested to know that some United States courts, state courts, have criticized the rule of abatement, particularly in the face of growing recognition of victims' rights in the criminal justice system, including the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It has been written and contended in the Brooklyn Law Review -- I can give you the cite later -- that when courts abate criminal convictions, they reimpose a burden on victims that legislatures intended to alleviate through these victim rights statutes. The state Supreme Court has even concluded that the expansion and codification of victims' rights provides the changed conditions needed for overruling the rule of abatement. It has also been stated that Alaska's statute and its constitution now require the criminal justice system to accommodate the rights of crime victims. Further, that the abatement of criminal convictions has important implications for these rights. But coming back to our case, which is what you are concerned about and I am as well, it is appropriate to conclude that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant as in the Wright case, it should also apply a fortiori in the Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103916 IC J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Epstein died, when there had been no conviction. So that's just some background I wanted to share with you. At this point in time, I would like to turn to the government prosecutors to hear from them in support of their Rule 48 application to dismiss the Epstein indictment. MS. : Thank you, your Honor. Would you like me to address the court from the podium? THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind. MS. : Thank you, your Honor. I believe your Honor has accurately summarized the state of the law, as set forth in our papers, in light of the clear Second Circuit law, that upon the death of a defendant before a final entry of a judgment of conviction, all proceedings must be abated. In light of that clear law, the government is legally obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, and we respectfully submit, likewise, that the entry of the proposed order is similarly required by law. A few notes to make about that, though, your Honor. To be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government's ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the prosecution of new defendants. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103917 J8RsEPS1 It also does nothing to prevent the government from 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continuing to explore the possibility of seeking civil forfeiture of any assets that were used to facilitate the crimes charged in this indictment. Indeed, as has been stated publicly, investigations into those matters have been ongoing, remain ongoing, and will continue following dismissal of the indictment here. I would also like to note that, as the government has previously mentioned, this dismissal in no way lessens the government's resolve to stand up for the victims in this case, both those who have come forward and those who have yet to do so. We agree with your Honor's sentiment that those victims should be respected, and we appreciate your Honor's recognition of that. One housekeeping matter that I did want to reference for your Honor. The protective order in this case requires destruction or return of any and all discovery material upon conclusion of the case. We have been in communication with defense counsel, who have confirmed that they have returned all physical copies that they have of discovery that the government has produced to date, and they are in the process of deleting any copies that they may have made. So the parties are in compliance with the protective order. Finally, I just wanted to say a word about the victims in this case, and particularly those who are here in court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103918 12 J8RsEPS1 today. I'll note that in light of the court's order indicating that the victims and their counsel would be permitted to be 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 heard in court here today, the government has endeavored to provide notice to all known victims of today's proceeding. We did so either directly where a victim was not represented by counsel or through counsel where a victim is represented by an attorney. The government does not know exactly how many victims or their attorneys are here today and we do not know how many of them or their counsel would like to speak. To the extent any individuals do wish to speak, we do not know the substance of what they would like to say. We have left that entirely up to the individual decisions of the victims and their attorneys. I will note, though, that throughout this case, the government has endeavored and done our utmost to fulfill our obligations under the Crimes Victims' Rights Act. We have done so by trying to keep as many victims as we are aware of up to date about the ongoing case and about any developments in the case. We will continue to provide services and offer services to any of the victims in this case, even after the indictment is dismissed. Both the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have been in touch with all known victims or have attempted to be in touch with all known victims, either again directly where victims are not represented by counsel or SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103919 13 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through counsel where they have attorneys. We have expressed to them that services are available for those who wish to take advantage of them. Unless the court has any questions for me, the government will otherwise rest on its papers. THE COURT: I just have one question. The protective order, is that self-executing or do 1 need to do something? MS. : It is self-executing, your Honor. THE COURT: Thanks very much, Ms. MS. : Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. I'll turn to counsel for the defense at this time. Mr. Weingarten, I'm happy to hear from you. MR. WEINGARTEN: Thank you. Your Honor, I think it is an understatement of the year to say the world looks and feels differently today than it did the last time I was before you. For us, the elephant in the room is what happened to our client. I would like to tell you how we see the world and where we are on that subject. We start with the Attorney General's statements, public statements, that there were very serious improprieties in the jail. We obviously read the press. We see that the warden has been taken out. We see that the guards on duty at the time have been put on leave. We understand guards are SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103920 11 JaRsEPS1 refusing to cooperate with the investigation. We have heard 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allegations that people at the time who had responsibility for protecting our client falsified information. We understand that there were orders out there that Jeffrey Epstein was never to be left alone and that the orders were ignored by many of the employees of the prison. In a word, yikes. In addition, obviously we followed the medical examiner's report, or we haven't followed the report, we haven't seen it, but heard conclusions, initially not enough evidence to come to a conclusion, wanted to see more. We assumed she was talking about the videotapes, but then came to the conclusion that it was suicide. We report to the court that -- THE COURT: Suicide by hanging -- MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. THE COURT: -- was her conclusion? MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. And we report to the court that we had a doctor there at the time, and we also have been in receipt of a tremendous amount of medical and scientific evidence volunteered to us opining that the injuries suffered, as reported, were far more consistent with assault than with suicide, and we are happy to supply the court with all the information that we have. Now, in addition, as the court noted, we were underway with our pretrial motions, and as the court obviously SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103921 15 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understands, the NPA and the role of the NPA was going to be critically important. And I would simply like to report that we went pretty far along. We interviewed all of the relevant lawyers on the defense side who participated in the NPA, and we were satisfied that we had a very strong argument that every one of those lawyers believed with an objective basis that the deal was global. That is, at the time -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, that? MR. WEINGARTEN: The deal of the NPA was global. That is, more specifically, at the time, agents knew of conduct in New York, defense counsel negotiating in good the Florida prosecutors and and that no competent faith with the prosecutors would have ever agreed to a deal back then that allowed New York prosecutors to indict for precisely the same conduct in the future, which, of course, is what happened. In addition, we have come up with very powerful evidence, we believe, that Florida prosecutors, who participated in the deal, steered the victims and the alleged victims to New York on more than one occasion because they did not want to suffer the sleights of attacks against them. So we have advanced the ball on this very subject and we are prepared to completely report to the court as to where we are and what we've done. Another point. We obviously had contact with our SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103922 16 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 client at or around the time of his death, and obviously the attorney -client privilege survives death and we are not going to forfeit the privilege, but we will report to the court, with as much specificity as the court may want, that at or around the time of his death, we did not see a despairing, despondent suicidal person. Details to follow, if the court wishes. The 800-pound gorilla, for us, of course, are the video surveillance tapes. Obviously we assume there is a tape that leads directly to the door where Jeffrey Epstein was housed. If that tape reports for 12 hours before his death that no one went in and out of that room, then the suggestion that there was something other than a suicide seems preposterous. But there is no such evidence that has surfaced to date. Just the opposite. We have heard, and we actually read in the press, that the tapes were either corrupted or not functioning. Talk about a yikes. If, in fact, the system was broken for six months before Jeffrey Epstein was housed, I mean, that would be stunning incompetence. If it was allowed to continue to be inoperative when Jeffrey Epstein was housed, it would be incompetence times ten. But what if the tapes only broke down or were inoperative or were corrupted on the day he was killed or the day he died? Then we're in a completely different situation. So where does this lead? I think where it leads, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103923 17 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Judge, is there are incredibly important questions that remain open. The public interest in this matter is obvious from this courtroom. There are conspiracy theories galore. We are all for finding the truth. We believe this court has an indispensable role to play. Whether or not this indictment is dismissed, I think this court has the inherent authority to find out what happened on its watch. Obviously, when the court detained Jeffrey Epstein, the court did not anticipate that weeks later he would be dead in his cell. I think given the inherent authority of the court, the court should make inquiry. This could come in many forms. Obviously the court made inquiry as to what happened in the first incident. When there was an allegation of an attempted suicide, the court made inquiry. The court obviously was interested. I recall your language. You talked about that being one of the several open questions indicating an interest on the court for the others as well. Obviously, the ultimate question is what happened to the client. THE COURT: You're talking about the July 23, 2019 incident? MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes. The court obviously could hold hearings. The court could assign a lawyer to help the court. I think this is an area where there is intense public interest. We have complete SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103924 18 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 confidence in the prosecutors in the Southern District and the FBI to do a competent investigation. But these are allegations against serious components of the United States Department of Justice. Sometimes the appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself. I think the court supervising, or at least keeping an interest in this proceeding, is incredibly important for the public to have confidence in the ultimate findings, and certainly for us to have confidence in the ultimate findings. One more issue, Judge. The conditions of the jail, in a word, they were dreadful. Not just for Jeffrey Epstein, but for many of the prisoners over there. This is a prison within the shadows of this courthouse. The situation is rife with vermin. The abuse and the conditions in that prison, in word, are a disgrace and everybody knows it. A person with authority told us, someone with knowledge, that the prisoners in Guantanamo -- and he spoke with personal knowledge -- are treated better than the prisoners right across the way. The feds certainly know how run a disciplined, clean prison. I've been in 20 of them. They know how to do it just fine. And the question is, why in the world does it not happen down the road? I think that is a perfectly legitimate subject for the court to make inquiry. In a word, we want the court to help us find out what happened. The court has a role to play. It is the institution a to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103925 19 J8RsEPS1 that most people have confidence in in these very troubled times. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So whether or not you dismiss the indictment, to us, is beside the point. We want you to stay on the case, we want you to conduct an investigation, and we want to know what happened here. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Just so it is clear, so your view on the motion directly on its merits of the nolle prosequi order and application by the U.S. Attorney, do you have a view on that? MR. WEINGARTEN: I think if the court felt that the case had to stay alive for the court to continue, we would oppose it. I think -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, if what? MR. WEINGARTEN: If the issue, if you took the position for you to conduct the investigation or lead the investigation or participate in the investigation, then we want, the role we want you to play, if the indictment has to be alive, we would oppose the motion. I don't think you need to do that. I think you can dismiss the indictment. THE COURT: So you're suggesting that you support the government's motion, just viewed in the context of -- MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes, of course. THE COURT: Great. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103926 20 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEINBERG: Judge, if I can just supplement? THE COURT: Absolutely. MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, sir. Thank you, as an out-of-town lawyer for the privilege to appear in front of you, your Honor. THE COURT: It's my pleasure. MR. WEINBERG: First, as to the conditions, we think your Honor trusted the government, the Bureau of Prisons, to keep our client safe and keep him in civilized conditions. The government will again ask, as to other defendants, that they be detained at the MCC, some subset of them will end up in the SHU unit. It is a horrific. I've called it medieval. There's vermin on the floor. There is wet from the plumbing. There is no sunlight. There is limited exercise. It is simply conditions that no pretrial detainee -- and I would go farther as a criminal defense lawyer -- no United States defendant should be subjected to. Certain judges have taken views of the conditions. We would urge your Honor, the government talks about and we talk about transparency, to see what kind of conditions there exist within 50 or 100 yards of one of the great United States district courts. Second, in terms, we have a profound problem with the conclusions of the medical examiner. There are for three SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103927 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reasons, your Honor. One is the timing of Mr. Epstein's demise. It was on August 10. On August 12, a bail pending appeal motion was being filed in the Second Circuit. On August 12 or 13, the United States Attorneys were going to respond to our request for the preservation and production of documents that would have facilitated and furthered our efforts to demonstrate communications between the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, which was standing in the shoes of the Southern District of Florida main justice and the Southern District. In other words, we were beginning the process discharging our responsibilities. There had been no new evidence that Mr. Epstein had committed any offense against a minor after 2005. The subject matter of the New York prosecution was squarely within the heartland of the Florida NPA. We had a significant motion to dismiss. This was not a futile, you know, defeatist attitude. Third, we had all the discovery motions that your Honor had scheduled. So the timing for a pretrial detainee to commit suicide on August 10, when his bail pending appeal motion is being filed on August 12, strikes us as implausible. Second, we had an independent doctor who was present at the autopsy which occurred on August 11. On August 11, the city medical examiner's findings were inconclusive. We are SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103928 22 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 told by a very experienced forensic pathologist that the broken bones in Mr. Epstein's neck, in his larynx, are more consistent with external pressure, with strangulation, with homicide, if you will, than with suicide. It doesn't exclude suicide, but the pure medical forensic evidence creates profound issues about what happened to him. Also the time of death. Our medical examiner's opinion is it occurred at least 45 minutes and probably hours before 6:30 a.m. on August 10, when he was first found, if you will, according to the reports. Yet he was moved, something that is not ordinary in these circumstances. I would also -- THE COURT: Excuse me. He was moved? MR. WEINBERG: Instead of having the cell in the condition it was found, if he had been dead for 45 minutes or two hours or four hours, there were efforts to move him and, therefore, make it more difficult to reconstruct whether or not he died of suicide or some other cause. I spoke to Stacey Richmond, who is a responsible member of this court who represents the family of Mr. Epstein. She spoke to the medical examiner on the Friday after Mr. Epstein's death and asked why, if the conclusion was made late in the afternoon on Friday that week. She specifically asked about what extrinsic nonmedical evidence caused the medical examiner to go from uncertain to suicide, and she was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103929 23 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 told that the medical examiner had seen nine minutes of one video which was on a stairwell between floors at the MCC. She was told that the principal video that would have showed the whole hall was corrupted. It was in DC with the FBI to see if they can reconstruct it. And I asked the same questions that my co-counsel did, you know, was the dysfunction of the critical pivotal video, in the most secure prison east of Florence, out in Colorado known to the MCC before August 10, or was this corruption occurring on August 10, which would again cause us to be skeptical of the servitude of the medical examiner's conclusions that this was suicide rather than some other cause. So with my co-counsel, we ask your Honor, it is not a question of trust or not trust. They ask you to detain people and you trust the Bureau of Prisons. And it is within your inherit authority, your Honor, to find out what happened to our client. We are angry about the conditions he was held in. And we're also angry, quite frankly, your Honor, that the only source of information that we get as to what happened to him is through the media rather than through the United States Attorney's office. We've made requests informal. We have made Touhy requests. We've been told there is a pending investigation. But we trust your Honor and the judiciary, and with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103930 JaRsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all due respect, we believe there is an inherent and central role, a pivotal role in your Honor to find out what happened to a defendant in a case before the court, whether or not the court grants the nolle pros today or whether it holds it pending an investigation into Mr. Epstein's death. We're not here without significant doubts regarding the conclusion of suicide. We are not here to say what happened. We don't know what happened. But we deeply want to know what happened to our client. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: And you, as Mr. Weingarten, have the same view of the nolle prosequi motion? MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: OK. MS. : Your Honor, may I respond to some of those points? THE COURT: Sure. MS. : Thank you, your Honor. Just briefly. With the exception of the noting that the defense does not have an objection to the government's motion, virtually everything else that defense counsel just argued, respectfully is completely irrelevant to the purposes of today's proceeding and to the motion that is pending before your Honor. As an initial matter, the question -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103931 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, it may be. Well, I don't know. You say irrelevant. It is a public hearing, and I think it is fair game for defense counsel to raise its concerns. MS. : Certainly, your Honor. But it is irrelevant to whether or not the motion should be granted. THE COURT: Right. I get that. MS. : I would also note that the question of Mr. Epstein's death is the subject of an ongoing and active investigation, as has been publicly noted, by a separate team of Assistant United States Attorneys from the Southern District of New York, separate from the team who is handling this prosecution, as well as a separate team of FBI agents. There is an ongoing and active grand jury investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death. It is the function of a grand jury and of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate crimes in the federal court system. It is not the purview, respectfully, of the court to conduct an investigation into uncharged matters. So respectfully, we disagree with defense counsel's suggestion that the court has some authority to conduct an independent investigation. To the extent any other defendants who are detained in the MCC have concerns about the conditions or believe that the conditions are relevant to a future or current bail determination, it is for those defendants and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103932 2 JaRsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their counsel to raise those arguments and for the judges hearing those arguments to evaluate those claims. It is not relevant to today's proceedings. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: In those other cases, Ms. , judges do have authority to investigate, but don't here? MS. : Not to investigate, your Honor, but to hear arguments about the conditions of confinement in the MCC as they may relate to any bail determination. I believe that was the argument that was made. The bigger picture here, your Honor, is that the focus of today's proceeding, as we understand it, is to allow the victims who have gathered here today to be heard and to comment upon the case and to comment upon the motion that is pending, and to bring this case to a close. THE COURT: Got it. MR. WEINGARTEN: May I? THE COURT: Sure. MR. WEINGARTEN: We obviously saw this as, perhaps, the last opportunity to be before you, and we wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to say our peace and thank you for allowing us. There is precedent here. Ted Stevens, the Senator from Alaska case in Washington, DC, Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered an independent investigation by a private lawyer when SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103933 27 JaRsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he was deeply troubled by the alleged Brady violations. I represented the prosecutors in that case, so I'm very, very familiar with it. It is analogous. It is a situation where there was tremendous controversy over what happened in the case and whether or not the prosecutors went off the reservation. Judge Sullivan -- and there were three or four independent -- not independent, DOJ inquiries into the very same matter. But Judge Sullivan wanted his own opportunity to make a judgment with his own independent investigation. THE COURT: OK. MR. WEINBERG: If I could just add one precedent, your Honor. The Chief judge in the District of Massachusetts or the Chief Judge at the time, Judge Wolf, in a case called U.S. v. Fleming, when the conditions at Walpole, which is a state prison where federal prisoners were being held -- we don't have a federal MCC in Boston went to the prison, stayed in the prison to determine whether or not the complaints about the conditions were authentic. I think your Honor has the inherent authority to go to the ninth floor and see how the MCC houses pretrial detainees. Thank you. THE COURT: Are you saying that whether or not the motion is granted that is pending before us? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103934 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. I think, like when appeals are taken, bail issues remain before the district court. Jurisdiction is not completely divested. Your Honor issued a pretrial detention order and your Honor has the power, the inherent authority, they are not going to refuse to allow you to go look at the ninth floor. They are going to count on you to make decisions in the future. I just trust that the executive branch is not going to prevent the judicial branch from looking into the death of Jeffrey Epstein or the conditions in the SHU unit at the MCC, sir. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. MS. : May I, your Honor? Just very briefly, your Honor. I would note that upon the dismissal of the indictment, which I believe the parties agree is appropriate in this case, there would be no case. There would be no jurisdiction for the court to conduct any sort of inquiry, even if the court had such authority. THE COURT: Right. OK. I think we've heard enough. It is at this point in the hearing that I would like to call upon victims' counsel, plural, for any remarks they may have and they may wish to make. Also, to introduce their clients, those of them who wish to be heard. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103935 29 J8RsEPS1 It would be helpful if, in doing that, if counsel - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Edwards and I see and I see Mr. Boise as well -- I know they are counsel to several, at least several of the victims. It would be helpful if whoever is speaking, both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Boise, would indicate to the court whether or not they have discussed the pending motion with their clients, that is to say and the rule of abatement, etc., etc. with them prior to today's hearing. Are we going to hear from Mr. Edwards first, is that right? MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: You bet. It would be helpful, Mr. Edwards, if you would state and spell your name for the court reporter. If you are going to introduce someone else, which I trust that you are, if you could state and spell their name as well. MR. EDWARDS: Yes, your Honor. May it please the court. Brad Edwards, B-r-a-d E-d-w-a-r-d-s, with the law firm of Edwards Pottinger. I have in the courtroom today 15 victims that I represent and have represented over the years. There are at least 20 more who didn't make this hearing today for a multitude of reasons, some out of fear of public exposure, others because the way in which this case ended will never SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103936 30 JaRsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bring full justice, and they decided it was best for them not to talk today. Some of my clients are going to address the court that are here today. Others are not. Some are going to use their names, and have in the past, and others wish to remain anonymous. And I have instructed each of them to inform the court reporter that they will be proceeding as Jane Doe so that the court reporter can take them down. THE COURT: For those who wish to remain anonymous? MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, your Honor. THE COURT: And that is satisfactory, as far as I am concerned. MR. EDWARDS: Before we do that, I would like to address a couple of the things that have occurred this morning. First of all, whether relevant or not, I personally, and on behalf of my clients, do appreciate the presentation that Mr. Weingarten made and Mr. Marty Weinberg made. I have tremendous respect for Mr. Weinberg. I've worked with him through this and related cases for years, and I understand the reason why they made the presentation that they made. There is two things of interest to our clients in that respect. One is, because of the tragic ending, that none of my clients wanted, nor did I, nor did anyone else, if there is some civil rights violation and there is some civil remedy for SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103937 31 J8RsEPS1 Mr. Epstein that goes to the estate, certainly the victims are interested in that as they might help to repair the damage done. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Second, Mr. Epstein's untimely death, the timing is curious to us. But more so, it makes it absolutely impossible for the victims to ever get the day in court that they wanted in court and to get full justice. That now can never happen. I know that Mr. Epstein's attorneys say he wanted it, and they know, we did too. And there are a lot of people here today that are very sad by the way that this ended for both Mr. Epstein and the fact that full justice was robbed from them, once again. The second issue I wanted to address was the Law Review or the Law Journal article that your Honor referenced, which is troubling because the opinion seems to say that transparency is not appropriate in the criminal system and is not appropriate at this point in time. That's tough to swallow, especially in this case, given the long history of this case. Personally, it is tough to swallow, and on behalf of my clients, I can say that is very concerning. Transparency is the only way that the justice system works. We know this because there was a similar investigation of Mr. Epstein many years ago, from 2005 to 2008. My personal involvement in this case was because a young female came into my office named , and she SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103938 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 came to me not asking to file a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, but simply asking for the government to talk to her. She was cooperating in an FBI investigation and wanted the government to speak with her, and I thought that was going to be an easy task. It was only a few months later that we learned that this investigation that was represented to my client in written form, that it would be a long investigation, and to be patient. Basically, to hang tight. It was resolved by way of a secret deal that never allowed any of the more than 30 victims who had been identified of Mr. Epstein's abuse in Florida to ever participate in a single hearing. There was a hearing. They were never notified. I then went on to represent many of them in civil cases and also in extensive pro bono work. And I can tell your Honor that while Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of them hurt them and harmed them for many years, the feelings they had was aggravated exponentially by the facts that they had no rights in the criminal justice system, by the fact that they were treated as if they didn't matter. They were not allowed their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act to meaningfully confer with prosecutors, to be treated with fairness, to be treated with dignity. That is what this is supposed to be about, and to have notice of hearings. So I do want to thank your Honor, and especially the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103939 33 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prosecutors who have worked this investigation and this case, which is very different in experience for all of my clients and the other Epstein victims in this case, because they were allowed to be a part of the process. While some of them elected not to be here today, that opportunity should always be allowed for them. In 2008, we filed that case under the Crime Victims' Rights Act because our clients' rights were violated, and as your Honor knows, a federal judge has ruled in our clients' favor that their rights were violated. So this hearing today means a lot to them. The fact that they may never get their chance to speak in court, they may never get complete closure, and all of us have to wonder, if their rights had been afforded them the first time, would any of us be here right now. Or wouldn't it more likely be the case that everyone, including Jeffrey Epstein, would have turned out better for it? Today, I have not only represented, but met and become very close with many of these victims. Many of these survivors. They are very strong people. They are people who have persevered through a lot of adversity. It's been a roller coaster of emotions that has led us to where we are today. And while they have all been cast over the years because of the secrecy of the first investigation, in the shadow as victims, you can't put them all in one bucket and say one size fits all. They are each individual people who were harmed differently and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103940 J8RsEPS1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 distinctly through not only the abuse, but the system. And on behalf of all of them, I would like to thank your Honor for the fairness with which they've been treated, and the United States Attorney's office for the way in which you have handled this investigation, and especially how you have treated the victims in this case. Like I said, I have many who want to speak. Some that can't. This is a very difficult day for them. But we appreciate the opportunity and the invitation. The first client that I have that is going to address your Honor is the one who walked into my office in 2008 asking just to be heard, THE COURT: Hold on one second. Did you all want to be seated? You don't need to be standing. Whatever is more comfortable until you're ready to give some comments. It's up to you. Ms. , if you could spell your name for the court reporters, please. MS. , last name Min (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103941 35 J8RPEPS2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. : My name is , and I'm a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused me for years, robbing me of my innocence and mental health. Jeffrey Epstein has done nothing but manipulate our justice system, where he has never been held accountable for his actions, even to this day. Jeffrey Epstein robbed myself and all the other victims of our day in court to confront him one by one, and for that he is a coward. I want to thank the U.S. Attorney's for seeking justice that has been long over due, and most importantly, given us, the victims, our day in court to speak our peace and find some sort of closure. I feel very angry and sad that justice has never been served in this case. Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks very much. MR. EDWARDS: I believe my next client who is going to speak is probably going to speak as Jane Doe. JANE DOE NO. 1: Yes, Jane Doe. THE COURT: We'll say Jane Doe No. 1, just for the record. JANE DOE NO. 1: Okay. Thank you for allowing us to speak today. I've shifted what I want to say in hearing what's already been said, and just about the question of Jeffrey's death. I don't know what the relevance is to this hearing, but I do know that it is profoundly relevant to my SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00103942 36 J8RPEPS2 life, as a victim. I don't like that word, but I still feel 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 li