\TTERSON
scutors presented Epstein a us state felony charges (that prisonment, registration as a ition for the victims) or else trial.
-ar-long assault on the prose- J use the word assault inten- his case was more aggressive srosecutors in my office, had fr Epstein hired an army of rofessor Alan Dershowitz, for- dine Law Dean Kenneth Starr, ) the President and then Kirk- _efkowitz, and several others, >) had formerly worked in the in the Child Exploitation and Justice Department. Defense | meeting with me to challenge terms previously presented by meeting with Mr. Black. The et with defense counsel in Fall ie office’s position: two years, n, or trial.
months, the defense team pre- rgument claiming that felony
inst Epstein were unsupported
ed a basis in law, and that the 4 time was motivated by a zeal to 5
y because he is wealthy. They
nts with legal opinions from
in ij
208 q
FirtHy RicuH
well-known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with the matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argu- ment, and when we did, my office’s decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored it.
The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification. Disqualifying a pros- ecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to trial harms like- lihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments.
Despite the army of attorneys, the office held firm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last minute appeal to Washington D.C. was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months impris- onment, register as a sexual offender for life, and provide restitution to the victims.
Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, filing detailed statements in civil cases seeking dam- ages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had
_ these additional statements and evidence been known,
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022017