Epstein Data Wiki

Paul G. Cassell

Properties2
tagsperson, lawyer, victims-counsel, cvra, utah, law-professor
aliasesPaul Cassell, Paul G. Cassell, Cassell, Paul G., Judge Cassell

19 min read

PositionRonald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah1
Earlier officeUnited States District Judge, District of Utah2
Role in the Epstein matterCounsel, with Brad Edwards, for the petitioners in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), appearing pro hac vice34
Appellate proceedingsIn re Wild, No. 19-13843 (11th Cir.), counsel for the petitioner56
Litigation as a partyBradley J. Edwards and Paul G. Cassell v. Alan M. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.)7

Paul G. Cassell is an American law professor at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah who previously served as a United States District Judge in the District of Utah.12 With Brad Edwards he acted, pro hac vice, for the two pseudonymous petitioners in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), which contended that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida had violated 18 U.S.C. § 3771 by failing to confer with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims before entering the 2007 non-prosecution agreement.389 Judge Kenneth A. Marra granted the petitioners partial summary judgment on February 21, 2019, holding that their right to conferral under the Act had been violated, and closed the case on September 16, 2019 after Epstein’s death mooted the principal remedy sought.1011 Cassell also acted for Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, and he and Edwards were themselves parties to a defamation action against Alan M. Dershowitz that was settled in April 2016.127

Background and appearances

Cassell described himself in open court in the Southern District of New York on August 27, 2019 as having “previously served as a federal judge at the District of Utah,” and as a law professor teaching crime victims’ rights at the University of Utah.2 An Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida addressed him as “Judge Cassell” in correspondence of August 2008 about the terms of a protective order in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case.13 His letterhead in 2019 gave him as Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, with a footnote recording that the institutional address was given for identification only and implied no institutional endorsement.1 Filings in the Florida case listed him as appearing pro hac vice, and the District of Utah recorded in 2016 that he appeared pro bono.398 By August 2025 he signed as counsel through the Utah Appellate Project at the same college of law.14

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act case

2008 to 2014

The petition that opened the case was filed on July 7, 2008 and signed by Edwards alone.15 Cassell was in correspondence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office alongside Edwards by August 15, 2008, when he proposed a change to the government’s draft protective order so that the obligation to acknowledge its terms before the non-prosecution agreement was shown to a client fell on the clients rather than on counsel, and the office incorporated the change.13 A status report he and Edwards filed on October 27, 2010 set out their intention to move for summary judgment on the Act’s violation and recorded that they had agreed to delay filing at the government’s request.3 Certificates of service in the case list Cassell, at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, and Edwards, at Farmer Jaffe in Fort Lauderdale, as counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2.4

The Palm Beach Daily News reported that at a hearing before Judge Marra in West Palm Beach on Friday, August 12, 2011, Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee argued that victim notification under the Act is triggered only after an indictment, and that Cassell disagreed, arguing that the Act’s notification right was not intended to apply only once an indictment had been filed.16 The paper reported that Marra questioned the government’s reading and reserved ruling on the petitioners’ motion to unseal the plea-deal correspondence.16 The Associated Press reported on June 4, 2014 that the two women had won an appeals court ruling entitling them to the documents from the plea-bargain discussions, and that Cassell said the petitioners’ complaint alleged that federal prosecutors, prodded by Epstein, had deliberately concealed the terms of the plea deal to avoid public criticism.17 The same article reported that Epstein’s attorneys denied that he had received preferential treatment, and that Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney at the time of the agreement, wrote in a 2011 letter that additional evidence had come to light after Epstein’s deal that might have changed the outcome.17 The Associated Press also reported that the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami would not comment, and that Epstein’s attorney Roy Black had declined to comment while asking that the documents be kept from public view.17

Summary judgment and the 2019 ruling

Cassell and Edwards filed a consolidated statement of undisputed material facts and a motion for partial summary judgment on February 10, 2016.9 Judge Marra ruled on February 21, 2019, granting the motion “to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated” and denying the government’s cross-motion.10 The court added that it was “not ruling” that the decision not to prosecute was improper, and was “simply ruling that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.”18 Law360 reported the ruling that day and identified the victims’ counsel as Edwards of Edwards Pottinger LLC, Jay C. Howell, John Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley and Cassell of the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida declined to comment, and a Department of Labor spokeswoman said the office’s actions had been defended by the Justice Department across three administrations.19

Four days after the ruling, on February 25, 2019, Cassell, Edwards and Scarola wrote on Cassell’s letterhead to Ariana Fajardo Orshan, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, asking her office to rescind the provisions of the non-prosecution agreement barring prosecution of Epstein and his co-conspirators, to reopen the investigation, and to confer with the victims; the three wrote again on March 4, 2019, stating that the office had not yet responded.120 Both letters were filed as exhibits to the petitioners’ position on remedies of May 10, 2019, which Cassell signed with Edwards and Scarola.21

Remedies and the close of the case

Judge Marra decided the remedy question on September 16, 2019.11 He recorded that the petitioners had sought rescission of the agreement’s non-prosecution provisions and a series of further remedies, that the government had proposed instead a meeting with a designated Justice Department representative, a public proceeding at which the petitioners could make victim impact statements, and additional CVRA training for prosecutors in the district, and that Epstein’s attorneys had argued before his death that the rescission remedies were unauthorised.11 The court held that Epstein’s death had mooted the principal issue, denied the remaining relief, denied the petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees, and closed the case; it wrote that rulings made during the litigation “likely played some role, however small it may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of New York.”11

In re Wild

Cassell and Edwards then sought mandamus in the Eleventh Circuit for one of the victims, in In re Wild, No. 19-13843, in which both are listed as counsel for the petitioner.56 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 granted rehearing en banc and vacated that opinion.522 Sitting en banc, the court denied the petition on April 15, 2021, holding that while the Act permits a victim to move for relief within an existing proceeding and to pursue administrative remedies, “it does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action,” and that because no charges had been filed against Epstein there was no proceeding in which the petitioner could have moved.6

The 2014–2015 joinder motion and the Dershowitz litigation

On December 30, 2014, in a motion corrected and refiled on January 2, 2015,23 Cassell and Edwards moved under Rule 21 to join two further victims, Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4, to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act case, and in support proffered facts including allegations against people who were not parties to it.24 Dershowitz, who was named among them, moved on January 5, 2015 to intervene for the limited purpose of striking the allegations against him and seeking an order to show cause against the lawyers who had filed them.25 The New York Times reported on January 4, 2015 that Dershowitz denied the allegations “categorically and unequivocally” and said he would file disbarment proceedings against Edwards and Cassell, and that Cassell said in a statement the day before that the lawyers had carefully investigated all of the allegations in their pleadings before presenting them and would consider any sworn testimony or documentary evidence Dershowitz provided.26

Judge Marra resolved the motions on April 7, 2015.23 He denied the Rule 21 joinder motion and a related motion to amend, struck the original joinder motion in its entirety together with the passages of the corrected motion and of two supporting declarations that contained factual details about non-parties, and denied Dershowitz’s motion to intervene as moot on the ground that the court had struck the material itself.23 On the question whether counsel should be ordered to show cause, the court held that “its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners’ submissions is sanction enough,” while cautioning that all counsel are subject to Rule 11 and that the court may strike immaterial or scandalous matter on its own motion.23 The court recorded that Jane Doe 3 remained free to reassert the stricken details through proper evidentiary proof if the petitioners could show a good-faith basis for their pertinence.23

Cassell and Edwards sued Dershowitz for defamation in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, No. CACE 15-000072, and Dershowitz counterclaimed against them both, alleging that they had accused him falsely and without adequate diligence.277 The action was resolved on April 8, 2016 through the court-appointed mediator Jeffrey E. Streitfeld; in the joint statement issued with the settlement, Edwards and Cassell maintained that they had filed their client’s allegations in good faith and had produced documents detailing their diligence, Dershowitz denied any misconduct and relied on travel and other records, Edwards and Cassell “acknowledge that it was a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz” and withdrew those accusations from all public filings, and Dershowitz withdrew his accusations that they had acted unethically.7 See the Dershowitz litigation.

Giuffre v. Maxwell

Cassell acted for Virginia Giuffre in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS (S.D.N.Y.).128 At a hearing before Judge Robert W. Sweet on April 21, 2016, Sigrid McCawley moved for Cassell and Edwards to be admitted pro hac vice, and Jeff Pagliuca opposed for Ghislaine Maxwell on the ground that the two would be witnesses in the case.12 Sweet denied the motions for the time being, saying he would not “grant the application for a pro hac status to a party in this or a related litigation,” and directed that the applications could be renewed once he received proof that the Florida action in which the two were parties had been dismissed together with affidavits that neither had any claim or litigation of his own outstanding; he added that he would probably then be inclined to grant them.12 The pro hac vice motion was subsequently granted, and the District of Utah recorded in June 2016 that Sweet had received information about the attorney-client relationship in deciding the challenge.8

Maxwell later served a subpoena on Cassell, who moved in the District of Utah to quash it or for a protective order, raising attorney-client privilege and arguing that Giuffre was the better source for the documents sought.8 Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse transferred the motion to the Southern District of New York on June 30, 2016 under Rule 45(f), finding exceptional circumstances in the number of related discovery rulings already before Judge Sweet, and noting that Cassell opposed transfer.8

Victims’ counsel and the federal proceedings, 2019–2025

Cassell spoke at the hearing before Judge Richard M. Berman in United States v. Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), on August 27, 2019, at which the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment following Epstein’s death was heard and victims were heard.2 He urged the court to publish its remarks as an opinion so they could guide other judges, and to add a reference to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act; the court thanked him.2

Justice Department planning records of October and November 2020 list Cassell among counsel involved in a briefing of Epstein’s victims.2829

On August 5, 2025 Cassell signed, with Edwards and Brittany Henderson, a letter to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in United States v. Maxwell addressing the government’s request to unseal grand jury materials.14 The letter said the signatories represented numerous survivors of Epstein and Maxwell, including people whose names and identifying information appeared in the materials, and asked the court to require conferral with victims’ counsel and notice before any ruling, to conduct an in camera review, to permit designated victims’ counsel to review the proposed redactions under a protective order, to hear any dispute over further redactions before ruling, and to deny disclosure without prejudice if adequate safeguards could not be assured.14 Judge Engelmayer publicly docketed that letter with four others from victims and other individuals on August 6, 2025.30

Coverage

  • Palm Beach Daily News, August 12, 2011: “Sides argue whether Jeffrey Epstein’s nonprosecution deal violated alleged victims’ rights,” by David Rogers.16
  • Associated Press, June 4, 2014: “Epstein’s accusers press to reopen sex abuse case,” by Curt Anderson.17
  • The New York Times, January 4, 2015: “Prince Is Named in Suit Alleging Sex With Minor,” by Emma G. Fitzsimmons.26
  • Law360, February 21, 2019: “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” by Carolina Bolado.19

Footnotes

  1. Letter from Brad Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and Jack Scarola, on Cassell’s letterhead, to Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, February 25, 2019, “Re: Protecting the Rights of Jeffrey Epstein’s Victims,” filed as Exhibit 1 to Document 452, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Letterhead and its footnote read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027776 pp.24–28. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Transcript, United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.), hearing of August 27, 2019, Cassell’s remarks at transcript pages 49–51. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00019994 pp.49–51. Other pages of this transcript, which carry victims’ statements, are not cited. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. “Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2’s Status Report and Response to Court’s Order to Show Lack of Prosecution,” Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 41, entered October 27, 2010, with the signature block “Paul G. Cassell, Pro Hac Vice.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01735410 pp.1–4, 8. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Respondent’s reply and certificate of service, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 140, filed January 24, 2012, service list entry “Paul C. Cassell, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01810304 pp.1, 7. ↩ ↩2

  5. In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. April 14, 2020), Westlaw printout; counsel listing “Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law … Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC … for Petitioner,” and the reporter synopsis recording that the petition was denied. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00073493 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. April 15, 2021) (en banc), Westlaw printout; counsel listing at p.3 and the opinion of Newsom, Circuit Judge, at pp.3–4. Quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00074599 pp.3–4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. “Lawyers Acknowledge Mistake In Filing Sexual Misconduct Charges Against Professor Dershowitz,” press release of April 8, 2016 containing the announcement of mediator Jeffrey E. Streitfeld and the Joint Statement of Brad Edwards, Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz. Quotation checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01186699 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. Memorandum Decision and Order Transferring Motion to Quash Subpoena or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order, In re: Subpoena to Paul G. Cassell, No. 2:16-mc-00602-DB-EJF (D. Utah), signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse, June 30, 2016. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01734383 pp.1, 3, 5. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Consolidated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Incorporated Memorandum of Law,” No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 361, entered February 10, 2016, signature block at p.56. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00184224 pp.1, 56. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 435, entered February 21, 2019, ordering paragraphs at p.33. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.1, 33. ↩ ↩2

  11. Opinion and Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), Document 478, entered September 16, 2019, at pp.1–4, 13–15. Quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02758614 pp.1–4, 14–15. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. Transcript, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), hearing of April 21, 2016 before Judge Robert W. Sweet, at transcript pages 3–8, filed as Exhibit B to Document 212-2 in United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00003803 pp.2, 4–8. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. Email exchange between Paul Cassell, Brad Edwards and Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Southern District of Florida, August 15, 2008, subject “RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak.” The prosecutors’ names are redacted in this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00014133 pp.1–2. ↩ ↩2

  14. Letter from Bradley Edwards, Brittany Henderson and Paul G. Cassell to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, August 5, 2025, “Re: Crime Victims’ Rights Act Implications Regarding Unsealing of Grand Jury Materials in Maxwell Proceedings,” United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330 (PAE), docketed as part of Document 804. Signature block read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842934 pp.14–18. A second copy is at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00015096 pp.14–18. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. “Victim’s Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771,” In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 1, entered July 7, 2008, signed “Brad Edwards, Esquire, Attorney for Petitioner.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02729716 pp.1, 8–9. ↩

  16. David Rogers, “Sides argue whether Jeffrey Epstein’s nonprosecution deal violated alleged victims’ rights,” Palm Beach Daily News, posted 7:14 p.m. Friday, August 12, 2011; printout dated August 19, 2011. Quotation checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01689016 pp.9–10. Other pages of this production are not cited. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Curt Anderson, “Epstein’s accusers press to reopen sex abuse case,” Associated Press, June 4, 2014, newspaper clipping. Quotation checked against the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01733963 p.1. A second newspaper printing of the same article is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01733962 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  18. Opinion and Order, Document 435, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), entered February 21, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027666 pp.32-33 (the sentence runs across the page break). ↩

  19. Carolina Bolado, “Prosecutors Broke Law In Epstein Plea Deal, Fla. Judge Says,” Law360, February 21, 2019, 5:58 p.m. EST, circulated by email within a U.S. Attorney’s Office on February 22, 2019. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00032506 pp.1, 3, 4. ↩ ↩2

  20. Letter from Brad Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and Jack Scarola to Ariana Fajardo Orshan, March 4, 2019, filed as Exhibit 2 to Document 452. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027776 pp.30–31. ↩

  21. “Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Position on the Procedures to be Followed to Determine a Remedy for the Government’s Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act,” No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 452, entered May 10, 2019, signature block listing Bradley J. Edwards, Paul G. Cassell and John Scarola as attorneys for Jane Does 1 and 2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00027776 pp.1, 21. ↩

  22. 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. ↩

  23. Order, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Document 324, entered April 7, 2015, at pp.6–7 and the conclusion at p.10. Quotation read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00097406 pp.2, 7–8, 11. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  24. “Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4’s Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action,” No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.), Document 280, entered January 2, 2015, pp.1–2. Details of the two proposed petitioners are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00021553 pp.2–3. ↩

  25. “Motion for Limited Intervention by Alan M. Dershowitz,” No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla.), Document 282, entered January 5, 2015, p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01200036 p.1. ↩

  26. Emma G. Fitzsimmons, “Prince Is Named in Suit Alleging Sex With Minor,” The New York Times, January 4, 2015, in a LexisNexis printout produced in the Maxwell prosecution. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01368193 p.1; the same article’s opening column is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01368192 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  27. Counterclaim of Alan M. Dershowitz, Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz, No. CACE 15-000072 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cnty.), Count IV and paragraphs 65, 73, 77–78. The client’s name is redacted in this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00613391 pp.37–38, 42–44. ↩

  28. Email of October 1, 2020 in a thread on logistics for a Justice Department briefing of Epstein’s victims, subject “Briefing for Victims - Logistics, etc.” The correspondents’ names are redacted in this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01651141 p.1. ↩

  29. Email thread of November 6–9, 2020 on logistics for a briefing by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General at the FBI Miami Field Office on November 12, 2020, with a guest breakdown listing representing attorneys including Paul Cassell. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01651588 pp.1–2. ↩

  30. Order of Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (PAE), Document 804, filed August 6, 2025, publicly docketing five letters submitted on behalf of victims and other individuals. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02842934 p.1. ↩

Backlinks