In a landmark decision, a U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected the 12-year quest of a Jeffrey Epstein survivor to hold the government accountable for giving the infamous child predator a clandestine deal that essentially allowed him to get out of jail after a minimal sentence, and, according to recent lawsuits, continue to abuse girls and women.
The 7-4 decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was split mostly along gender lines, with four female judges issuing a scathing rebuke of the majority’s interpretation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). The decision, unless it is overturned on further appeal, could allow wealthy defendants to continue to arrange favorable plea deals from the government without any oversight or accountability, said an attorney who originally filed the challenge.
“The ruling is very disturbing. It sets up two systems of justice, one for wealthy defendants who can negotiate deals before charges are filed — and one for most criminal defendants, who don’t have the wealth and power to arrange those kinds of deals,’’ said the attorney, Paul Cassell.
…
In her dissenting opinion, Senior Circuit Judge Frank Hull skewered the majority’s “sense of sorrow,’’ over not being able to give Epstein’s victims justice. Noting that the decision would have far-reaching impact in other cases involving wealthy defendants, she said the ruling “leaves federal prosecutors free to engage in the secret plea deals and deception’’ before criminal charges are ever made public, resulting in “the travesty” that happened in the Epstein case.
She also noted that “the Department of Justice’s failure to discipline its own prosecutors heightens the importance of the CVRA’s private right of action.’’
DOJ’s investigation found that prosecutors exercised “poor judgment,’’ but stopped short of recommending sanctions against prosecutors, including Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney in Miami who approved the secret deal.
Acosta declined to comment on the ruling.
Featured image is “Pommes pourries – Rotten apples” by rore is licensed under CC BY 2.0)
So assuming it’s appealed, where does it go from here?Report
My fundamental assumptions include “Alexander Acosta was not lying when he said he was told to leave it alone.”
As such, I think that there are more people who are being told to leave it alone.
I don’t know that it goes anywhere on appeal because the higher up you get, you get more people who know to leave it alone when they are told to leave it alone.Report
Any appeal would go to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take it. They may not, since it’s one court possibly getting one law wrong in an idiosyncratic case, and “merely wrong” is almost a term of art for denying review. The Supremes don’t take cases merely because they came out wrong. In fact, if the error is bizarre and egregious enough, that cuts against their taking a case. It isn’t likely to happen again, precisely because it’s so bizarre and egregious. So no need for guidance from the Supremes.
Since this is a case about what a statute means, not what it ought to mean, you can lobby for legislative change, and apparently that is in the works.Report