December 8, 2025 • 12 mins
The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA’s protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.
The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ’s defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims’ rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government’s reading of federal law.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Title
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ’s defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims’ rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government’s reading of federal law.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Title
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking back up where
we left off with the CVRA transcripts the court. All right,
so is there any point in conferring with these victims,
mister Lee, your honor. I will always confer sit down
with Jane Do one and two, with the two agents
(00:22):
and Ms Villa Fauna. We'll be happy to sit down
with them, Judge Marra. But it wouldn't make any difference
in terms of the outcome. Would maybe give them the
benefit of your explanation of why you did what you
did and why you came to the conclusion you did,
But it's not going to change your decision in any way,
mister Lee. If it's going to change, it would have
(00:43):
to be done at a level higher than mine, your honor.
Judge Marra, what was I didn't understand your statement earlier
that mister Epstein wanted some kind of review of higher
authority within the Department in terms of whether or not
the federal government was going to insist on preserving any
civil claims. Mister Lee, your honor. The agreement was consummated
(01:04):
by the parties in December of two thousand and seven,
mister Epstein's attorneys wanted further review of the agreement higher
up within the Department of Justice, and they exercise their
ability to do that, Judge Marra, meaning again, I'm trying
to understand he wasn't happy with the agreement that he
had signed. Mister Lee, basically yes, and he was trying
(01:25):
to maintain that the government or the agreement should be
set aside for more favorable terms. Judge Mara, Now in
terms of you don't dispute that Jane Do one and two.
First of all, do you have any objection to Jane
Doe two being added to a petitioner in the case,
mister Lee, No, I don't, Judge Marra, I'll grant that request.
(01:45):
You don't dispute that they're victims within the meaning of
the act, mister Lee. It depends to which there is
one Jane Doe. Well, there is one individual who is
one of mister Edward's clients who we do not believe
to be a victim. If these are sex then we
have no objection, and I can discuss if I may
have a moment, your honor, Your honor, I have been corrected.
(02:07):
We have no objection the court. Okay, mister Lee, we
agree they're victims, Judge Marra, Now that is your position, then,
recording the right of a victim of a crime that
is potentially subject to federal prosecution to be that have
input with a prosecutor your office before a resolution or
decision not to prosecute is made. Do you say that
(02:28):
there is no right to confer under those circumstances because
there is no case pending, so any decision not to prosecute,
there is no right to confer. But the right to
confer only is triggered once there is an indictment or
an information filed. Mister Lee, that is correct, your honor.
The Attorney General's Guidelines, which were published in May of
two thousand and five, provide that the rights in thirty
(02:49):
seven seventy one A one through eight A crew when
a charge is filed in federal court. Now that may
change after the Dean decision. It's under consideration, but that's
the government's position, Judge Marra. All right, and so are
you saying all of the rights he gets interrupted by
mister Lee, your honor, Some of the rights clearly will
(03:11):
only pertain after a charge has been filed. The one
that pertains to notice of public hearing public proceedings, though
can't apply until there are public proceedings to be held.
Of course, these guidelines are a floor and not a ceiling.
They're to be applied with common sense. If somebody if
charges of assault were being investigated, and somebody would come
(03:32):
in and say, the perpetrator whom you're investigating is getting
ready to indict, has been threatening me, following me, and
I need help because he or she is going to
do something bad to me and try to take care
of me before I can testify in the grand jury.
This person would not be turned away because the charge
hasn't been filed yet. Those guidelines would be applied with
(03:52):
common sense, but specifically in so far as a five,
which is the right to consult with the attorney for
the government in the case, that would not accrue until
there is a days and in our view, a case
doesn't come in to being until the charges are filed.
Judge Marra, and are there any reported decisions that you
(04:13):
are aware of where any courts found a right to
confer before charges are filed. Mister Lee, I'm not aware
of any of your honor the court all right, thank you,
mister Lee, Thank you, your honor. The court counsel Brad Edwards,
I would just like to address that dean decision. They're
asking you that you just simply ignore it, because the
(04:33):
decision clearly was a decision made because as it is
a direct result of a plea deal being worked out
prior to the victims being able to speak the court.
But there was a pending case though correct Edwards, as
I understand the decision the court, as I understand the
plea deal. It was negotiated prior to charges being filed.
(04:53):
Then there was a filed case and the court had
the ability to accept the plea or not. And at
that point you would have the ability to entertain or
assert an objection because you weren't consulted about the plea.
So there was a preceding or case in which you
can assert our right to confer. How do you do
that before a case is filed? How do you enforce
(05:14):
the government or force the government to consult about not
filing a case. Every case they have to consult with
the victim before they decide not to prosecute. Edwards know
there are limitations, I think, am I reply, I refer
to the case Us versus Reuben, where they discuss that
very scenario, stating that there are at least has to
be criminal charges contemplated by the government before these rights
(05:37):
kick in. The rights under D three and A five
the right to confer, and the Dan case clearly states
rights under the CVRA apply before prosecution is underway. Logically
this includes the CVRA establishment of victim's reasonable right to
confer with the attorney for the government, and that's read
(05:57):
in the planned reading of the statute as well the
first case. In interpreting it, I think it's pretty clear
the distinction they're making between BP and this case is
it a distinction without a real difference, in that the
court is saying, you have this right before the case
is filed, which is exactly what we are saying. And
the result in that case was they filed the case later,
(06:19):
let them plea out on some sweet deal. And in
this case what we have is they avoided that. They
decided not the file. Either way, you deprive the victim
of their right before making that decision. And the main
problem that the court had in Deed as it states
the victims do not have rights when there is an
impact and the eventual scent is substantially less, whereas here
(06:41):
their input is received after the parties have reached the
tentative deal, while the government just stated the deal was
reached back in October of two thousand and seven. However,
attached to their response is a letter to my client petitioner,
dated January tenth, two thousand and eight, after the time
then Council just put on the record that the deal
was all already finalized, and it starts the opening paragraph
(07:02):
talks about whether they wanted the victims to have the
right to confer. It says, this case is currently under investigation.
This is January two thousand and eight. This case has
been a lengthy process and we request your continued patients
while we conduct a thorough investigation. Sounds like the exact
opposite of we want you to come in and confer
(07:23):
and let us know what you really feel about this.
That's our biggest problem with what's happened here, and that
she just wasn't given a voice, and if somebody would
have heard her, we believe there would have been a
different outcome. To go back into a room right now
and talk after there has already been a plea negotiated
without your honor ordering that in this case the plea
deal needs to be vacated, it's illegal and give her
(07:46):
her rights. Judge Marra, well, would you agree or not
that mister Epstein pled guilty to the state charges, probably
at least in part a reliance upon the fact that
he had an agreement with the federal government they weren't
going to pro prosecute. Would you concede that or would
you present evidence to that effect? Mister Edwards, of course
we would, yes, of course, sure, the court, So you
(08:09):
agree that mister Epstein is now sitting in the Palm
Beach County jail, a convicted felon, serving eighteen months of imprisonment,
at least in material part because he relied upon the
government's non prosecution agreement. Edwards, Yes, I agree that he's
sitting there because he's guilty, and maybe he took the
plea rather than going to trial and being found guilty
later in part because of this non prosecution agreement that
(08:31):
was worked out behind the other victims' backs. I would
agree with that, Judge Marra. So he accepted the state
deal in part because he knew he had an agreement
from the federal government that they weren't going to prosecute
Brad Edwards. I presume I speculate that that's true, Judge Marra,
So you want me now then to set aside the
(08:52):
government's agreement with him, because there was no conferring yet
he has already accepted a plea agreement and is sitting
in custody in part in reliance on that agreement. I mean,
I can undue the agreement in your theory, But how
do I Mister Epstein in a sense, would be then
adversely affected by my actions when he acted in reliance
(09:13):
upon the agreement. How does that work? Brad Edwards? Certainly
we're only asking you to vacate the agreement. I understand,
and your point is well taken, and I believe that
was the point in time his rights may kick in
and say, wait, I was relying on this other deal,
so I wouldn't be prosecuted for these hundreds of other
girls that I'm molested that I pled guilty over here
(09:35):
to the one girl that I will admit to molesting.
So maybe I can get to withdraw my plea. But
the last thing he wants to do, because if he
ends up going to trial, I'll be in prison for
the rest of my life, like any other person whoever
did this crime would be He could have that argument,
I guess, but still wouldn't really work well for him,
(09:55):
Judge Marraw, all right, so you still think I should
set aside the agreement, require the government to confer Brad
Edwards work out a plea that is equal to the
crimes that he committed and that are favorable after they
confer with the victims, and it's within their discretion, of course,
they can decide on their own that, Hey, I think
that the agreement was fair after they talk with the victims.
(10:18):
That could happen. I don't know if a reasonable person
that would do that, but it could happen the court. Apparently,
you're not suggesting that these persons are not reasonable, Brad Edwards.
I'm suggesting that they haven't conferred with the victims, and
that if they took into consideration what these two in
the courtroom have to say, I don't think that we'd
be in the same position we're in right now, Judge Marra.
(10:43):
They never spoken to your client about what happened to them,
Brad Edwards. They have spoken to them about what happened,
maybe not about what the girls wanted to happen as
a result of the case, which is part of conferring
to decide that these girls wanted money on their own,
which is basically what this non prosecution of agreement and
tells that the language that he'll agree to liability in
(11:03):
a civil case. That's not what these girls. They want justice.
They want them in prison now more than ever. The
reason they stated they kept this agreement from the girls,
and they basically conceded, we didn't tell the girls about
this agreement. Well, the reason is because they would have
objected and they would have been able to sign off
on this, and the victims would have had a voice,
(11:25):
and we'd still be going through litigation. The exact problem
they tried to prevent, at least in their terms, which
was the impeachment of these girls at a later trial,
is still available to anybody once the civil suits are filed. Anyway,
they have three arguments. One, we didn't have to talk
to them. Two we did talk to them sort of,
And if you buy that the reason we didn't talk
(11:47):
to them, we were trying to prevent them from being
impeached later. None of them trump the victim's rights to
confer prior to plea negotiation. That's why, your honor, we
would ask this court to enter an order of vacating
that previous plea agreement as illegal, ask them to confer
with the victims once again or for the first time,
and work out a negotiated plead to that accord. Judge Mara, well,
(12:10):
all you can ask them to do is confer. I
can't ask them to do anything beyond that. I mean,
it's up to them to negotiate. Brad Edwards, I wouldn't
quarrel with that. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna finish
this bad boy off. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking back up where
we left off with the CVRA transcripts the court. All right,
so is there any point in conferring with these victims,
mister Lee, your honor. I will always confer sit down
with Jane Do one and two, with the two agents
(00:22):
and Ms Villa Fauna. We'll be happy to sit down
with them, Judge Marra. But it wouldn't make any difference
in terms of the outcome. Would maybe give them the
benefit of your explanation of why you did what you
did and why you came to the conclusion you did,
But it's not going to change your decision in any way,
mister Lee. If it's going to change, it would have
(00:43):
to be done at a level higher than mine, your honor.
Judge Marra, what was I didn't understand your statement earlier
that mister Epstein wanted some kind of review of higher
authority within the Department in terms of whether or not
the federal government was going to insist on preserving any
civil claims. Mister Lee, your honor. The agreement was consummated
(01:04):
by the parties in December of two thousand and seven,
mister Epstein's attorneys wanted further review of the agreement higher
up within the Department of Justice, and they exercise their
ability to do that, Judge Marra, meaning again, I'm trying
to understand he wasn't happy with the agreement that he
had signed. Mister Lee, basically yes, and he was trying
(01:25):
to maintain that the government or the agreement should be
set aside for more favorable terms. Judge Mara, Now in
terms of you don't dispute that Jane Do one and two.
First of all, do you have any objection to Jane
Doe two being added to a petitioner in the case,
mister Lee, No, I don't, Judge Marra, I'll grant that request.
(01:45):
You don't dispute that they're victims within the meaning of
the act, mister Lee. It depends to which there is
one Jane Doe. Well, there is one individual who is
one of mister Edward's clients who we do not believe
to be a victim. If these are sex then we
have no objection, and I can discuss if I may
have a moment, your honor, Your honor, I have been corrected.
(02:07):
We have no objection the court. Okay, mister Lee, we
agree they're victims, Judge Marra, Now that is your position, then,
recording the right of a victim of a crime that
is potentially subject to federal prosecution to be that have
input with a prosecutor your office before a resolution or
decision not to prosecute is made. Do you say that
(02:28):
there is no right to confer under those circumstances because
there is no case pending, so any decision not to prosecute,
there is no right to confer. But the right to
confer only is triggered once there is an indictment or
an information filed. Mister Lee, that is correct, your honor.
The Attorney General's Guidelines, which were published in May of
two thousand and five, provide that the rights in thirty
(02:49):
seven seventy one A one through eight A crew when
a charge is filed in federal court. Now that may
change after the Dean decision. It's under consideration, but that's
the government's position, Judge Marra. All right, and so are
you saying all of the rights he gets interrupted by
mister Lee, your honor, Some of the rights clearly will
(03:11):
only pertain after a charge has been filed. The one
that pertains to notice of public hearing public proceedings, though
can't apply until there are public proceedings to be held.
Of course, these guidelines are a floor and not a ceiling.
They're to be applied with common sense. If somebody if
charges of assault were being investigated, and somebody would come
(03:32):
in and say, the perpetrator whom you're investigating is getting
ready to indict, has been threatening me, following me, and
I need help because he or she is going to
do something bad to me and try to take care
of me before I can testify in the grand jury.
This person would not be turned away because the charge
hasn't been filed yet. Those guidelines would be applied with
(03:52):
common sense, but specifically in so far as a five,
which is the right to consult with the attorney for
the government in the case, that would not accrue until
there is a days and in our view, a case
doesn't come in to being until the charges are filed.
Judge Marra, and are there any reported decisions that you
(04:13):
are aware of where any courts found a right to
confer before charges are filed. Mister Lee, I'm not aware
of any of your honor the court all right, thank you,
mister Lee, Thank you, your honor. The court counsel Brad Edwards,
I would just like to address that dean decision. They're
asking you that you just simply ignore it, because the
(04:33):
decision clearly was a decision made because as it is
a direct result of a plea deal being worked out
prior to the victims being able to speak the court.
But there was a pending case though correct Edwards, as
I understand the decision the court, as I understand the
plea deal. It was negotiated prior to charges being filed.
(04:53):
Then there was a filed case and the court had
the ability to accept the plea or not. And at
that point you would have the ability to entertain or
assert an objection because you weren't consulted about the plea.
So there was a preceding or case in which you
can assert our right to confer. How do you do
that before a case is filed? How do you enforce
(05:14):
the government or force the government to consult about not
filing a case. Every case they have to consult with
the victim before they decide not to prosecute. Edwards know
there are limitations, I think, am I reply, I refer
to the case Us versus Reuben, where they discuss that
very scenario, stating that there are at least has to
be criminal charges contemplated by the government before these rights
(05:37):
kick in. The rights under D three and A five
the right to confer, and the Dan case clearly states
rights under the CVRA apply before prosecution is underway. Logically
this includes the CVRA establishment of victim's reasonable right to
confer with the attorney for the government, and that's read
(05:57):
in the planned reading of the statute as well the
first case. In interpreting it, I think it's pretty clear
the distinction they're making between BP and this case is
it a distinction without a real difference, in that the
court is saying, you have this right before the case
is filed, which is exactly what we are saying. And
the result in that case was they filed the case later,
(06:19):
let them plea out on some sweet deal. And in
this case what we have is they avoided that. They
decided not the file. Either way, you deprive the victim
of their right before making that decision. And the main
problem that the court had in Deed as it states
the victims do not have rights when there is an
impact and the eventual scent is substantially less, whereas here
(06:41):
their input is received after the parties have reached the
tentative deal, while the government just stated the deal was
reached back in October of two thousand and seven. However,
attached to their response is a letter to my client petitioner,
dated January tenth, two thousand and eight, after the time
then Council just put on the record that the deal
was all already finalized, and it starts the opening paragraph
(07:02):
talks about whether they wanted the victims to have the
right to confer. It says, this case is currently under investigation.
This is January two thousand and eight. This case has
been a lengthy process and we request your continued patients
while we conduct a thorough investigation. Sounds like the exact
opposite of we want you to come in and confer
(07:23):
and let us know what you really feel about this.
That's our biggest problem with what's happened here, and that
she just wasn't given a voice, and if somebody would
have heard her, we believe there would have been a
different outcome. To go back into a room right now
and talk after there has already been a plea negotiated
without your honor ordering that in this case the plea
deal needs to be vacated, it's illegal and give her
(07:46):
her rights. Judge Marra, well, would you agree or not
that mister Epstein pled guilty to the state charges, probably
at least in part a reliance upon the fact that
he had an agreement with the federal government they weren't
going to pro prosecute. Would you concede that or would
you present evidence to that effect? Mister Edwards, of course
we would, yes, of course, sure, the court, So you
(08:09):
agree that mister Epstein is now sitting in the Palm
Beach County jail, a convicted felon, serving eighteen months of imprisonment,
at least in material part because he relied upon the
government's non prosecution agreement. Edwards, Yes, I agree that he's
sitting there because he's guilty, and maybe he took the
plea rather than going to trial and being found guilty
later in part because of this non prosecution agreement that
(08:31):
was worked out behind the other victims' backs. I would
agree with that, Judge Marra. So he accepted the state
deal in part because he knew he had an agreement
from the federal government that they weren't going to prosecute
Brad Edwards. I presume I speculate that that's true, Judge Marra,
So you want me now then to set aside the
(08:52):
government's agreement with him, because there was no conferring yet
he has already accepted a plea agreement and is sitting
in custody in part in reliance on that agreement. I mean,
I can undue the agreement in your theory, But how
do I Mister Epstein in a sense, would be then
adversely affected by my actions when he acted in reliance
(09:13):
upon the agreement. How does that work? Brad Edwards? Certainly
we're only asking you to vacate the agreement. I understand,
and your point is well taken, and I believe that
was the point in time his rights may kick in
and say, wait, I was relying on this other deal,
so I wouldn't be prosecuted for these hundreds of other
girls that I'm molested that I pled guilty over here
(09:35):
to the one girl that I will admit to molesting.
So maybe I can get to withdraw my plea. But
the last thing he wants to do, because if he
ends up going to trial, I'll be in prison for
the rest of my life, like any other person whoever
did this crime would be He could have that argument,
I guess, but still wouldn't really work well for him,
(09:55):
Judge Marraw, all right, so you still think I should
set aside the agreement, require the government to confer Brad
Edwards work out a plea that is equal to the
crimes that he committed and that are favorable after they
confer with the victims, and it's within their discretion, of course,
they can decide on their own that, Hey, I think
that the agreement was fair after they talk with the victims.
(10:18):
That could happen. I don't know if a reasonable person
that would do that, but it could happen the court. Apparently,
you're not suggesting that these persons are not reasonable, Brad Edwards.
I'm suggesting that they haven't conferred with the victims, and
that if they took into consideration what these two in
the courtroom have to say, I don't think that we'd
be in the same position we're in right now, Judge Marra.
(10:43):
They never spoken to your client about what happened to them,
Brad Edwards. They have spoken to them about what happened,
maybe not about what the girls wanted to happen as
a result of the case, which is part of conferring
to decide that these girls wanted money on their own,
which is basically what this non prosecution of agreement and
tells that the language that he'll agree to liability in
(11:03):
a civil case. That's not what these girls. They want justice.
They want them in prison now more than ever. The
reason they stated they kept this agreement from the girls,
and they basically conceded, we didn't tell the girls about
this agreement. Well, the reason is because they would have
objected and they would have been able to sign off
on this, and the victims would have had a voice,
(11:25):
and we'd still be going through litigation. The exact problem
they tried to prevent, at least in their terms, which
was the impeachment of these girls at a later trial,
is still available to anybody once the civil suits are filed. Anyway,
they have three arguments. One, we didn't have to talk
to them. Two we did talk to them sort of,
And if you buy that the reason we didn't talk
(11:47):
to them, we were trying to prevent them from being
impeached later. None of them trump the victim's rights to
confer prior to plea negotiation. That's why, your honor, we
would ask this court to enter an order of vacating
that previous plea agreement as illegal, ask them to confer
with the victims once again or for the first time,
and work out a negotiated plead to that accord. Judge Mara, well,
(12:10):
all you can ask them to do is confer. I
can't ask them to do anything beyond that. I mean,
it's up to them to negotiate. Brad Edwards, I wouldn't
quarrel with that. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna finish
this bad boy off. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com