accused of sexual abuse. As the New Yorker reported, DA Vance declined to charge Harvey Weinstein with a sex crime in 2015 even though investigators collected ample evidence that he had groped an actress without consent. See Jennie Suk Gersen, Why Didn’t the Manhattan DA Prosecute the Trumps or Harvey Weinstein, NEW YORKER (Oct. 13, 2017) available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecute- the-trumps-or-harvey-weinstein. Even after the emergence of the #Me Too movement and the indictment of Harvey Weinstein on rape charges, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has continued to face criticism for failing to prosecute the Weinstein case aggressively enough. Id. District Attorney Vance is an elected official who wields an immense amount of discretion over prosecutions. The people of New York have the right to scrutinize how his office treated this case involving a rich and well-connected sex offender, especially in light of allegations that other notable sexual predators have benefitted from the apparent deference of prosecutors. To put it bluntly, the appellate briefs should be released immediately to avoid any impression of impropriety caused by continued secrecy. There is also a strong interest in disclosing the appellate briefs to enable the public to review for itself the arguments that led this Court to issue the Decision affirming Epstein’s status as a level three sex offender. By ensuring public access to the courts and enabling public discussion of the functioning of the judiciary, the news media help “the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process — an essential component in our structure of self- government.” Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 606. As courts have recognized time and again, “[w]ithout access to the proceedings, the public cannot analyze and critique the reasoning of the court.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6th Cir. 1983). Thus, “[o