The Case for Keeping Jeffrey Epstein Behind Bars
The horrid tale of Jeffrey Epstein’s many years of allegedly sexually abusing young girls and allegedly procuring them for his friends to abuse is unfolding in the news, following his indictment and arrest by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. He has been in custody since his arrest two days ago. A bail hearing was scheduled before a federal magistrate judge today, but was continued until Thursday for ruling. Prior to today’s hearing, prosecutors prepared and submitted their memorandum to the court outlining the factual basis for their objections to his release.
Of course, the purpose of bail is to secure the appearance of a defendant in court, not to punish. To determine a defendant’s risk of flight and danger to the community, the Bail Reform Act sets forth the specific factors to be considered when bail is requested, and it seems the feds have a pretty good case on all four. These factors are (paraphrased): 1)the seriousness of the charged conduct; 2)the strength of the evidence against the accused; 3)the defendant’s history and character as well as financial resources; and 4) danger posed by the defendant’s release. Bail is to be denied if the Court finds that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, and the safety of the community.” As a further hurdle for Epstein, when a child victim is involved, there is a presumption that no such conditions are available.
The DOJ addressed each of these factors in turn. Setting forth the seriousness of the crimes charged was fairly easy. The government points out that the alleged conduct spanned several years and involved dozens of child victims. Furthermore, Epstein, age 66, faces decades if convicted, a factor the Court has cited previously in bail decisions as weighing on the side of risk of flight.
In laying out its case for the strength of the evidence, the DOJ sets forth some rather disturbing details. In addition to the testimony of multiple victims, which the government describes as “detailed, credible, and corroborated”, the filing reveals the discovery of voluminous evidence at Epstein’s home, including “an extraordinary volume of photographs” of young women and girls in various states of undress, as well as the names, contact information, and records of calls to some of the victims. According to the government, the strength of this evidence, the seriousness of the charges, and the lengthy prison sentence attached, “create an extraordinary incentive to flee.”
In discussing the character and history of Epstein, the prosecution has a treasure trove of facts in their favor. Besides the obvious fact of his status as a registered sex offender due to his conviction in Florida, the filing points out the extensive means available, should Epstein decide to flee. He has six residences, including one in France, with the primary home being his private island in the US Virgin Islands, where supervision would be difficult. Further, home confinement “would merely reduce his head start, should he decide to flee,” which he could do in secret upon one of the two private jets he uses. And, unlike most defendants, the threat of losing any bail money to forfeit, should he abscond, would be meaningless to Epstein.
Furthermore, feds claim that Epstein is a danger to the community, citing “credible evidence” of him harassing and trying to intimidate witnesses, including an incident in which his private investigators nearly ran the father of a witness off the road during the investigation in Florida. And, citing the many photos of nude or nearly nude possibly underage girls found in his mansion this past weekend, prosecutors warn that Epstein “is not reformed, is not chastened, is not repentant; rather, he is a continuing danger to the community, and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting deeply serious charges.”
Though the bail hearing was continued and Epstein remains jailed, there was some argument in court today, giving some indication where the defense may go. Epstein’s lawyer, Reid Weingarten, pointed out that the indicted conduct occurred between 2002 and 2005, and that at least two of the victims were from Florida. Thus, the attorney said, the indictment is merely an attempt at a “re-do” prosecution of the 2008 Florida case. Weingarten also claimed his client believed the plea deal he took in that matter was “global” and resolved all allegations. But the prosecution argues that the Southern District of New York is not bound by that agreement, which was a plea to state charges, not federal.
Epstein was arraigned and pleaded not guilty and will return before the Magistrate on the 11th for further proceedings on bail, and again on the 15th before the judge handling the case in chief. An 800 number has been set up for information and for anyone who believes he or she was a victim of Epstein’s. According to CNN, several individuals have come forward with allegations over the last few days.
For now, Epstein remains jailed, the disgusting saga continues, and we wait to see which powerful elites may be brought down with him.
You’d get more discussion if you made the case for bail.Report
Ok:
The charged conduct dates back over 15 years and predates his conviction in Florida. There is no allegation that he has committed a crime since then, nor does the government allege or have evidence that any of the women in the seized photographs are minors. In addition, he did not flee when facing charges in Florida; the rumors have been swirling for weeks that he may face further criminal action and yet he has not fled. Finally, he was never charged with the alleged intimidation of a witness.
(Best I can do).Report
Best you can do and not feel the need to shower in bleach afterwards, anyway.Report
This is a great comment. I’m really impressed.Report
Thanks. Used to do this for a living, so that helps.Report
I agree. OP makes a decent try below. I guess all the questions we have for bail boil down to:are you rich?
Is there any crime a person could be alleged with , while having $100mm in assets, where bail is possible? Alot of the the arguments originally noted could apply to anyone with a non-diminimous level of wealth.
Is bail verboten after you reach $XX level of wealth and how do the courts deal with this?Report
You can’t have hard and fast rules with bail- each case is supposed to be considered individually by analysis of those factors I outlined (with the exception of the automatic no bail provisions for capital crimes.)
I think seriousness of the charges/possible sentencing would be a salient factor because lesser crimes would provide lesser incentive to flee.
The DOJ memo also mentioned that Epstein has no known family members, further weakening his ties to NY.
And I think that it would be much harder to make a no bail case for, say, embezzlement, which is not a violent or quasi-violent crime. (Anyone recall whether Madoff got bail?)Report
Thanks Em. I get the underlying proposition of bail, and more extrapolating out from this case.
What I am asking is that if someone has $100mm of assets, is there any bail amount that could fit the criteria? If you have a charge that doesn’t require the hearing, setting of bail, IANOL, etc. sure, it doesn’t matter. But if you do, for the most basic charge, does the questions involved accurately reflect what we want bail to accomplish? Or if you have that level of wealth, you automatically are jailed if accused/indicted/whatever?
In this case I’m fine with holding, but the questions/issues for bail seem to really just ask: is the accused wealthy? if yes, no bail. The logic of it strikes me oddly.Report
I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think wealth is the only factor though. It’s possible a person could be every bit as rich as Epstein and still not be considered a flight risk. (Conversely, of course, people with little to no means are often jailed with no- or prohibitively high- bail.)
In Epstein’s case I would say no. No amount of bail would secure his appearance because I do believe he would flee. Someone else might have all that money, but no house out of the country, not known to take private jets, lots of family in the area, etc.Report
Huh. Kinda expected him to have committed suicide but shooting himself in the back of the head twice by now.
Maybe tonight.Report
What DVD’s in the safe? There were no DVD’s and no safe. This is just an isolated incident of a single person’s peccadillos (spell check wants Peccadilloes… but I’m not falling for that Dan Quayle trap). Fake news.
Might be the best we get…Report
it’s actually pecka deal leos.Report
This case is bad, bad, bad. On LGM, we are discussing it from a feminist prospective. But you know somewhere on the Internet, a bunch of people will use this story to justify every single anti-Semitic belief they have because Epstein is Jewish, wealthy from finance, and knew lots of other powerful people.
The case is a Rosarch test of partisanship. At the very least, there are lots of powerful people who had reason to suspect Epstein and looked the other way. At worse, this is going to implicate lots of powerful people in much worse ways.Report
Partisanship? If this story proceeds the way it looks to, do you think either party feels entirely secure?Report
The only political commentator on twitter worth trusting has a good insight:
Report
“Further, home confinement ‘would merely reduce his head start, should he decide to flee,’ which he could do in secret upon one of the two private jets he uses.”
I’m very sympathetic to denying bail, but the feds’ reasoning on this particular point seems a little off. Couldn’t they just impound the jets?
ETA: Italics/emphasis added by me.Report
I’m not sure at this point they have the legal right to do so.
Besides, with his means, I doubt those two jets are the only options he has.Report
I didn’t realize their authority to impound the jets was in question. That certainly changes things. And I do realize he has other options than those two jets.
Thanks for clarrfyng, though.Report
Yeah, I don’t think they can just impound them. They could attempt a civil forfeiture, and I can’t imagine they won’t since at least one of them was used in the alleged crimes (“Lolita Express”).Report
What would be the consequences to the pilot in such an event? Any criminal charges? Loss of license? If the court were to confiscate Epstein’s passport, would the pilot be in any trouble for flying him to a foreign country?Report
If the pilot knew that’s what he was doing, maybe so? I don’t really know. And I’m not sure- if you fly on your private jet I assume you still have to show a passport to someone, but I wouldn’t know- I’ve sadly never left the country on a private jet.
Or any jet
And I’ve never had a passport.Report
IIRC, there is no need to show a passport to exit a country, only to enter. Commercial airlines request to see your passport so that they aren’t dealing with a passenger who is unlikely to be denied entry and become a problem they have to deal with.Report
I’ve left the country on a private jet once, but it was only as far as Canada and years ago. No one even looked in the airplane in either country. They just took the pilot and copilot’s word on citizenship, duties, etc.Report
I saw a cute meme quoting Epstein’s lawyer arguing that Epstein wasn’t a flight risk, overlaid over a cartoon of a rocket blasting off from Skull Island.Report