Epstein Data Wiki

2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement

Properties2
tagscase, non-prosecution-agreement, usao-sdfl, crime-victims-rights-act, 2007, 2008
aliases2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement

29 min read

InstrumentNon-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida1
SignedSeptember 24, 2007; seven pages, thirteen numbered terms23
AuthorityExecuted “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida”; OPR records that Acosta did not sign it14
AddendumSigned by Epstein and his counsel October 29, 2007; re-affirmed by Epstein December 7, 200756
PerformanceState guilty plea and sentence, June 30, 20087; released from custody July 22, 20098
Victims’ rights caseDoe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), filed July 7, 20087
CVRA rulingFebruary 21, 2019: the right to confer was violated; the court stated it was “not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper”9
DispositionRemaining relief denied, judgment entered and case closed September 16, 201910
OPRNovember 2020: no professional misconduct; Acosta’s decision to resolve the investigation through the agreement “constitutes poor judgment”11

The non-prosecution agreement signed on September 24, 2007 between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) ended a federal criminal investigation into allegations that Epstein had engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls, without any federal charge.72 It was executed “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,” and provided that “prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida.”1 In exchange Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two Florida state offences, one of them requiring registration as a sex offender, and to a mechanism through which identified victims could recover damages.127 A separate paragraph committed the United States not to charge “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” naming four of his assistants.3 The victims were not told of the agreement before it was signed, and a federal court held in 2019 that this violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.713 The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) reported in November 2020 that none of the prosecutors committed professional misconduct but that Acosta’s decision to resolve the investigation this way “constitutes poor judgment.”11 The agreement’s scope was later litigated by Ghislaine Maxwell, who was not among the four named and who argued the clause nonetheless barred her prosecution in New York.1415

Background

The Palm Beach Police Department began investigating Epstein in 2005 after a complaint that he had paid a minor for a massage; the investigation found that Epstein used personal assistants to recruit girls to give him massages that in many instances led to sexual activity.16 A Palm Beach County grand jury indicted him on July 19, 2006 for felony solicitation of prostitution under Florida Statutes § 796.07.16 The police chief and the lead detective, dissatisfied with the State Attorney’s handling of the case, referred the matter to the FBI in West Palm Beach.16 An Assistant U.S. Attorney opened a federal file with her supervisor’s approval and with Acosta’s knowledge, and in May 2007 submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment and a prosecution memorandum.16 At a meeting with Epstein’s attorneys on July 31, 2007, the office offered to end its investigation if Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, served a minimum of two years’ incarceration, registered as a sexual offender and agreed to a damages mechanism for victims.16 At that meeting the office also presented a written term sheet giving a conservative estimate of the sentence Epstein would face if convicted at trial: “an advisory guideline range of 188 - 235 months of imprisonment with a five-year mandatory minimum prison term, to be followed by lifetime supervised release,” and gave counsel two weeks to accept or reject the proposal.17 A further compromise, reached at a September 12, 2007 meeting on the state plea, was, in the office’s words, “a reduction in the amount of jail time – from twenty-four months down to eighteen months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility.”18 Negotiations over the following weeks produced the agreement, signed on September 24, 2007.16 See the Palm Beach Police investigation and Operation Leap Year.

The instrument

The agreement runs to seven printed pages. Its recitals list five categories of federal offence that the FBI and the USAO had investigated as possibly committed by Epstein “from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007”: conspiracy to use a facility of interstate commerce to entice minor females into prostitution (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 371); conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minor females (§§ 2423(b), 2423(e)); the substantive enticement offence (§§ 2422(b) and 2); travel for illicit sexual conduct (§ 2423(b)); and recruiting, enticing and obtaining a person under 18 to be caused to engage in a commercial sex act (§§ 1591(a)(1) and 2).19

The operative recital reads: “THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.”1 The same page provides that after Epstein “timely fulfill[ed]” the terms, no prosecution for the recited offences, for “any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office,” nor for “any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation” would be “instituted in this District.”1

Terms

Thirteen numbered terms follow. Epstein was to plead guilty to the pending state indictment (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB, one count under § 796.07) and to a further state information charging “an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03,” which OPR identifies as procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.127 He was to make a binding recommendation of “a thirty (30) month sentence”: consecutive terms of twelve and six months in county jail, followed by twelve months of community control.12 He was to waive all challenges to the information and his right to appeal the conviction and sentence except a sentence exceeding that recommendation.12

Term 7 provided that the United States would give Epstein’s attorneys a list of individuals it had identified as victims within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2255 “after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced,” and that the United States, subject to the good-faith approval of Epstein’s counsel, would select an attorney representative for those persons, “who shall be paid for by Epstein.”20 Term 8 waived Epstein’s right to contest liability and damages for anyone on that list who elected to proceed exclusively under § 2255.20 Term 12 provided that Epstein would be afforded no gain-time benefits beyond those available to any other inmate under standard Florida rules, and would account for the gain time he earned if the United States asked.3 Under the agreement Epstein was to be sentenced no later than October 26, 2007.3

Confidentiality

Term 13 reads in full: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.”3 A copy of the agreement was filed under seal with the state court.7 OPR found that this provision “was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims,” that the defence came to interpret it as barring the USAO from telling victims about the status of the investigation, and that agreeing to it “mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims.”21 After victims and news media sued in the Florida courts, a state judge ordered the sealed state-court copy made public in September 2009.8

The non-prosecution provision and the four named individuals

The paragraph that follows the numbered terms, on page 5 of 7, reads:

In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.3

The four named are Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova, described by OPR as Epstein’s four assistants.322 The clause states an undertaking by the United States not to bring charges; it is not a finding by a court or a grand jury.323 Unlike the immunity given to Epstein, which the agreement twice confines to “this District,” the paragraph names no district.13 The same paragraph suspended the federal grand jury investigation, held pending grand jury subpoenas in abeyance, and provided that on successful completion all outstanding subpoenas would be deemed withdrawn.3

OPR examined whether the provision was agreed in order to shield any of Epstein’s known associates and concluded that the evidence does not establish that it was.23 It found “little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration,” and traced how a narrower clause sought by the defence expanded through successive drafts “with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the provision.”23 The only written internal discussion OPR located was an email from the line prosecutor, A. Marie Villafaña, circulating the draft language to two supervisors, Andrew Lourie and the supervisor who succeeded him as manager of the West Palm Beach office, commenting, “I don’t think it hurts us.”2322 Reporting its conclusions, OPR wrote that “[i]mportant provisions, such as promising not to prosecute all ‘potential co-conspirators,’ were added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors.”24 It also found that although there was no evidence the negotiators intended the clause to protect anyone beyond the four assistants, “the plain language of the provision precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct, within the limitations set by the overall agreement.”22 Senior Department officials and prosecutors interviewed by OPR described the provision as very unusual, one of them saying he did not know how immunity could be given to somebody who was not identified.21 The Second Circuit later noted that the United States Attorney’s Manual in force during the negotiations required the express written approval of the United States Attorneys in each affected district or of the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division before an office could bind another district, and that “[n]othing before us indicates that USAO-SDNY had been notified or had approved of Epstein’s NPA with USAO-SDFL and intended to be bound by it.”25

Signatures and addendum

The copy of the agreement filed in Epstein’s 2019 bail proceedings carries three versions of the final page, signed separately by Epstein, by Gerald Lefcourt and by Lilly Ann Sanchez, each dated 9/24/07; the block for the United States Attorney’s Office, headed with Acosta’s name and title and designating Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña to sign “By:” on the office’s behalf, is blank on all three; no government representative signed any of the three copies.2 OPR states that Acosta “did not sign the NPA,” but that he participated in its drafting, approved it with knowledge of its terms, accepted responsibility for it in his OPR interview, and is therefore treated by OPR as responsible for it.4

An addendum clarifying term 7 followed, allowing the United States to assign to an independent third party the responsibility for selecting the victims’ attorney representative and setting out the limits of Epstein’s obligation to pay that representative’s fees.5 Epstein and his attorneys signed it on October 29, 2007, and on December 7, 2007 Epstein signed and faxed an affirmation re-affirming “the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007.”56

Performance and aftermath

Epstein did not plead guilty for another nine months. His attorneys sought to change the negotiated terms and to persuade senior Justice Department officials that there was no federal interest in the matter; on June 23, 2008 the Office of the Deputy Attorney General told defence counsel that the Deputy Attorney General would not intervene.7 Epstein pleaded guilty in state court on June 30, 2008 and was sentenced the same day, on the joint request of the defence and the state prosecutor, to consecutive terms of twelve and six months’ incarceration followed by twelve months of community control.7 He was approved for the county sheriff’s work release programme, from October 2008 spent twelve hours a day at an entity he had recently incorporated, received gain time, served less than thirteen months of the eighteen-month jail term, and was released to home detention on July 22, 2009, registering as a sexual offender with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.8

The victims’ rights litigation

On July 7, 2008 a victim identified as “Jane Doe” filed an emergency petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the government had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by resolving the federal investigation without consulting victims; a second victim later joined.7 The case, Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, was assigned to Judge Kenneth A. Marra.26 Responding to the petition, the government revealed that the agreement existed but did not produce it until ordered to do so subject to a protective order, and the agreement remained under seal in the federal file; the case was then dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil claims against Epstein.7

The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing among other things that “there has been no disposition by the government of any federal criminal charges against Epstein” and that the agreement “does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein” outside the Southern District of Florida, since its immunity language was expressly limited to “this District.”27 The parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment.26

The ruling of February 21, 2019

Judge Marra granted the petitioners partial summary judgment “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated” and denied the government’s cross-motion.9 The court held that “[a]t a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein,” and that “once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.”2813 It wrote that “[p]articularly problematic was the Government’s decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility,” noting that while the government “spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein’s attorneys, scant information was shared with victims,” who “were told to be ‘patient’ while the investigation proceeded.”28 It further found that the office “engaged in lengthy negotiations with Epstein that included repeated assurances that the NPA would not be ‘made public or filed with the Court.’”29

In the same passage the court set an express limit on what it had decided:

The Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court is simply ruling that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.9

The court ordered the parties to confer within fifteen days on what remedy, if any, should follow.9 After the order the Department recused the USAO-SDFL from the litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia to handle it.30

Remedies and the order of September 16, 2019

The petitioners asked the court to rescind the provisions barring prosecution of Epstein and of his named and unnamed alleged co-conspirators, to declare that such a prosecution would be constitutional, and for a range of further relief including a court hearing for victims, disclosure of government material, CVRA training for the office and monetary sanctions, restitution and fees.31 The government opposed those remedies as unauthorised by the statute and proposed instead a meeting between a Department representative and the victims, a public proceeding at which they could give impact statements, and additional CVRA training for its prosecutors in the district.32 Epstein, permitted to intervene, opposed rescission; he died on August 10, 2019 while the matter was under advisement, and further briefing followed.303332

On September 16, 2019 Judge Marra denied the remaining relief. The court wrote that “[t]his Order brings to an end this lengthy and contentious litigation,” that recent events had mooted “the most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government’s violation of Petitioners’ rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA,” and that the other relief sought was “either beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to grant, unavailable under the law or, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion and under all of the circumstances of the case, unnecessary or unwarranted.”34 It declined to award sanctions, restitution or attorney’s fees, finding that the government, though unsuccessful, “asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation.”35 The order directed the clerk to unseal two docket entries, provided that it “shall constitute a judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58,” and directed the clerk to close the case with all pending motions denied as moot.10

Eleventh Circuit

The September 2019 order was challenged by petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eleventh Circuit. A panel denied the petition on April 14, 2020, holding that rights under the Act do not attach until criminal proceedings have been initiated; the court then granted rehearing en banc and vacated that opinion.3637 Sitting en banc, the court denied the petition on April 15, 2021, holding that the Act does not create a private right of action authorising a crime victim to bring a stand-alone civil suit to enforce it.38 See the CVRA litigation and victims’ rights litigation.

The OPR investigation

OPR opened an investigation after the Miami Herald’s report of November 28, 2018 and a December 3, 2018 request from the chairman of a Senate Judiciary oversight subcommittee, and broadened it after the February 2019 ruling.39 Its report is dated November 2020.40 OPR concluded that none of the five subject attorneys committed professional misconduct in developing, negotiating and approving the agreement; that Acosta’s decision not to bring a federal prosecution was within the scope of his authority; and that it found no evidence the decision “was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations, such as Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations.”411 It recorded that Acosta had resisted defence efforts to return the matter to the state unconditionally and had refused to drop the incarceration and registration requirements.11

OPR nevertheless concluded that “Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA constitutes poor judgment,” finding that he “failed to consider the difficulties inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had no authority,” that he “resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were completed,” and that he “agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances.”11 Section V of the report found that the resulting agreement “was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage.”24 On the victims, OPR found no clear and unambiguous duty to consult before signing, because the investigation was resolved without a federal charge and the Department did not then read CVRA rights as attaching before charges were filed, and no evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims; it separately found that Acosta exercised poor judgment in leaving to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims of the plea hearing.1141 See Alex Acosta and Marie Villafaña.

The agreement in the Maxwell prosecution

Ghislaine Maxwell moved on February 4, 2021 to dismiss the superseding indictment against her in the Southern District of New York, arguing that as a charged co-conspirator of Epstein she was a third-party beneficiary of the non-prosecution provision.14 Her brief argued that because the phrase “in this District” appears in the provisions benefiting Epstein but not in the co-conspirators paragraph, “[t]he absence of the phrase ‘in this District’ from the co-conspirator immunity provision therefore compels the opposite inference: that the parties did not intend to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL.”42 The government responded that third parties have no standing to enforce plea agreements and that, in any event, Maxwell had not shown she was an intended beneficiary.43

Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion on April 16, 2021.44 Summarising the OPR report, she wrote that “the NPA was unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy,” that the promise not to prosecute unidentified co-conspirators “marks a stark departure from normal practice for federal plea agreements,” and that the provision “appears to have been added ‘with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors’”; but she held that “[o]nly the NPA’s effect, and not its wisdom, is presently before the Court,” and denied the motion on two independent grounds, that the agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and that it does not cover the offences charged.44

The jury found Maxwell guilty on all but one count on December 29, 2021, and she was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.45 The Second Circuit affirmed on September 17, 2024, applying United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), for the rule that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction,” and holding that “[t]here is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida.”46

Maxwell was not among the four people the clause names, a point her own sentencing memorandum made: it told the court that four women had been named in connection with the Florida agreement, that the government prosecuted none of them, and that attention turned instead to Maxwell, “who was not named in the Florida ‘sweetheart’ deal.”47 Her petition for certiorari, filed April 10, 2025, asked whether a promise made on behalf of the “United States” by one U.S. Attorney binds prosecutors in other districts.48 The Solicitor General’s brief in opposition argued that the question did not warrant review in this case because “petitioner was not a party to the relevant agreement; only Epstein and the Florida USAO were parties to the NPA,” and that under Department policy at the time the office could have bound other districts only with their approval or that of the Criminal Division, which it did not obtain.49 The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025.50

Separately, when Epstein was indicted in the Southern District of New York in July 2019, his defence argued in his bail submission that the new charges concerned “conduct the relitigation of which is barred by a prior federal nonprosecution agreement.”51 After Epstein’s death the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a nolle prosequi and the court dismissed that indictment on August 29, 2019.30 See the SDNY 2019 indictment.

Before the Herald: a warning in January 2015

Nearly four years before the Miami Herald series, a reporter was already preparing to publish the agreement. On January 21, 2015 a correspondent emailed Epstein: “Just got a voicemail from John Cook from Gawker wanting to ask me questions. Said he’s going to publish some of your flight logs and the non prosecution agreement where it says I’m immune from prosecution, etc”.52

The sender’s name is blacked out in the released copy and this page does not identify them or narrow who they might be. What the message records on its own terms is that a person who understood themselves to be covered by the agreement’s non-prosecution provision learned, and told Epstein, that a reporter intended to publish it.52

Coverage

  • Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime,” Miami Herald, November 28, 2018. OPR records that the paper reported Acosta had made an “extraordinary” deal permitting Epstein to avoid federal prosecution by pleading guilty in state court, that the government also immunised his co-conspirators, and that the terms were concealed from his victims.824

Footnotes

  1. Non-Prosecution Agreement, agreement p. 2 of 7 (p. 3 of the filed exhibit): the authority and deferral recital and the “instituted in this District” paragraph. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Non-Prosecution Agreement, three versions of the signature page (agreement p. 7 of 7) at pp. 8, 9 and 10 of the filed exhibit, each dated 9/24/07 and read from the page image; the government’s block is headed with Acosta’s name and title and designates Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña to sign “By:” on the office’s behalf, and that line is blank on all three copies. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Non-Prosecution Agreement, agreement p. 5 of 7 (p. 6 of the filed exhibit): terms 12 and 13 and the paragraph on potential co-conspirators and the grand jury; quoted passages read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  4. OPR Executive Summary, p. ix (p. 11 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement, pp. 11 to 14 of the filed exhibit; the clarification of paragraph 7 at p. 11 and the signature pages at pp. 12, 13 and 14, dated 10/29/07. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Affirmation of Jeffrey E. Epstein, p. 15 of the filed exhibit, signature dated 12/7/07 and transmitted by fax the same day. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2

  7. OPR Executive Summary, p. ii (p. 4 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  8. OPR Executive Summary, p. iii (p. 5 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. Opinion and Order of February 21, 2019, pp. 32 and 33 of 33; the quoted passage begins on p. 32 and concludes on p. 33, and the ordering paragraphs follow; read from the page image, including “victims rights” as printed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. Opinion and Order of September 16, 2019, p. 15 of 15; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩ ↩2

  11. OPR Executive Summary, p. x (p. 12 of 14 as filed); quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  12. Non-Prosecution Agreement, agreement p. 3 of 7 (p. 4 of the filed exhibit), terms 1 to 5. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. Opinion and Order of February 21, 2019, p. 32 of 33. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 ↩ ↩2

  14. Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement, Document 142 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed February 4, 2021, pp. 1 and 2 of 38 as filed (cover page and table of contents, the latter setting out the standing and scope arguments). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002573 ↩ ↩2

  15. United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426-cr, Document 109-1 (2d Cir. September 17, 2024), opinion p. 6 of 26, quoting the co-conspirators clause. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  16. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, Executive Summary of Report, November 2020, p. i (p. 3 of 14 as filed), filed as Exhibit D to Document 138-4 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, February 4, 2021. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  17. Letter, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Kenneth W. Starr, Esq., November 30, 2007, p. 2, narrating the July 31, 2007 meeting between the office and Epstein’s attorneys; quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659896 p.2. ↩

  18. Same letter, p. 4 n.3, narrating a September 12, 2007 meeting on the state plea; quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659896 p.4. ↩

  19. Non-Prosecution Agreement, agreement pp. 1 and 2 of 7 (pp. 2 and 3 of the filed exhibit), reciting the five categories of offence investigated; the list begins on p. 1 and its last two items are on p. 2. Filed as Exhibit 1 to Document 6-1 in United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), July 11, 2019; the same copy carries the stamp of Document 361-62 in No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, entered February 10, 2016. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩

  20. Non-Prosecution Agreement, agreement p. 4 of 7 (p. 5 of the filed exhibit), terms 6 to 11. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000290 ↩ ↩2

  21. OPR Report, narrative p. 186 (p. 212 of 348 as filed) and n.258; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2

  22. OPR Report, narrative p. 185 (p. 211 of 348 as filed); quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. OPR Report, full text filed as Government Exhibit 3, Document 204-3 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, April 16, 2021, narrative p. 166 (p. 192 of 348 as filed), section IV.G; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  24. OPR Report, narrative p. 169 (p. 195 of 348 as filed), section V and n.243; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003177 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 11 and 12 of 26, quoting United States Attorney’s Manual § 9-27.641 (2007). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  26. Opinion and Order, Document 435, Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), entered February 21, 2019, p. 1 of 33, listing the cross-motions. Reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 ↩ ↩2

  27. United States’ Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Document 209 in Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON, reproduced as Exhibit 2 to Epstein’s bail submission of July 11, 2019; caption at p. 2 and the quoted passage at p. 11 of the filed exhibit. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000305 ↩

  28. Opinion and Order of February 21, 2019, pp. 27 and 28 of 33; quotations read from the page image, including “mislead” as printed. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 ↩ ↩2

  29. Opinion and Order of February 21, 2019, p. 31 of 33. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 ↩

  30. OPR Executive Summary, pp. iv and v (pp. 6 and 7 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  31. Opinion and Order of September 16, 2019, pp. 2 and 3 of 15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  32. Opinion and Order of September 16, 2019, pp. 3 and 4 of 15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩ ↩2

  33. Opinion and Order, Document 478, Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), entered September 16, 2019, p. 1 of 15. Reported at 411 F. Supp. 3d 1321. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  34. Opinion and Order of September 16, 2019, p. 14 of 15; quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  35. Opinion and Order of September 16, 2019, p. 13 of 15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 ↩

  36. In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. April 14, 2020), No. 19-13843, Westlaw printout; reporter synopsis recording that the panel denied the petition. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00073493 pp. 1–2. ↩

  37. Table of authorities citing In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 967 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2020). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00099352 p. 3. ↩

  38. In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. April 15, 2021) (en banc), No. 19-13843, Westlaw printout; reporter synopsis at p. 1 recording the holding that the Act “did not create a private right of action authorizing crime victim to file stand-alone civil lawsuit to enforce CVRA rights” and that the petition was denied. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00074599 p. 1. ↩

  39. OPR Executive Summary, pp. v and vi (pp. 7 and 8 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩

  40. OPR Executive Summary, cover page (p. 2 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩

  41. OPR Executive Summary, p. xi (p. 13 of 14 as filed). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002533 ↩

  42. Maxwell memorandum in support of motion to dismiss, p. 26 of 38 as filed (printed page 21). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002573 ↩

  43. The Government’s Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, Document 204 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed April 16, 2021, cover page and p. 46 of 239 as filed (printed page 19). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00002935 ↩

  44. Opinion and Order, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. April 16, 2021), Alison J. Nathan, District Judge, reproduced as Appendix D to Maxwell’s petition for a writ of certiorari at 54a–55a (pp. 84 to 85 of 159 as filed); quotations read from the page image. The characterisation of the agreement as “unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy” is the district court’s own summary of the OPR report, citing that report at x, 80, 175, 179 and 260–61; the words in quotation marks within it are quoted by the court from the report at 169 and 185. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩ ↩2

  45. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 7 and 8 of 26. See Ghislaine Maxwell for the trial and sentencing. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  46. Second Circuit opinion, pp. 9 and 10 of 26. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000002 ↩

  47. Ms. Maxwell’s Sentencing Memorandum, Document 663, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), filed June 15, 2022, pp. 4–5 of 77 as filed (printed pages 3–4); quotations read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00010447 ↩

  48. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Maxwell v. United States, filed April 10, 2025, pp. 1–2 of 159 as filed (cover and question presented). https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000034 ↩

  49. Brief for the United States in Opposition, Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073, July 2025, p. 20 of 21 as filed. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000219 ↩

  50. Supreme Court of the United States, docket for Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073: “Petition DENIED” October 6, 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1073.html ↩

  51. Letter of Reid Weingarten to Judge Richard M. Berman, Document 6 in United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), filed July 11, 2019, p. 1 of 16. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00000274 ↩

  52. Email to Jeffrey Epstein, January 21, 2015, 4:36:42 p.m. The sender’s field is blacked out in the released copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747026 p.1. Quoted in full including the trailing “etc”; a withdrawn draft cut the quotation short without marking the omission and described the sender by a role the document does not give. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks