Does v. United States

Citations: 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115421; 2011 WL 4793213Docket: Case 08-80736-CIV

Court: District Court, S.D. Florida; September 26, 2011; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, alleged victims of sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County between 2001 and 2007, filed motions regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The FBI initiated an investigation into Epstein in 2006, which was supported by evidence indicating potential federal charges. In June and August 2007, the plaintiffs received victim-notification letters outlining their rights under the CVRA. However, in September 2007, plea discussions began between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, culminating in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state charges while avoiding federal prosecution. Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not inform them about the NPA or involve them in the plea negotiations, despite their ongoing communication with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. This lack of disclosure continued until June 2008, when the U.S. Attorney's Office finally informed Plaintiffs' counsel of Epstein's impending guilty plea in state court. All motions related to this case are fully briefed and awaiting the Court's review.

The U.S. Attorney's Office did not reveal the existence of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) related to Epstein when responding to Jane Doe. 1's request for federal charges against him. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel urged the U.S. Attorney's Office to pursue these charges. Following this, Jane Doe. 1 filed a petition on July 7, 2008, claiming her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) were violated due to the government's lack of notification about plea discussions with Epstein. In its response on July 9, 2008, the government contended that since no federal indictment existed, the CVRA did not apply, but it also asserted that it had made efforts to comply with the CVRA. This response revealed the NPA's existence. A hearing on the petition occurred on July 11, 2008, where Jane Doe. 2 joined as a plaintiff, and it was determined that the petition was not an emergency. The Court later ordered the U.S. to provide the NPA to identified victims and to establish a protective order regarding its disclosure. Following a year and a half of inactivity while Plaintiffs pursued civil actions against Epstein, they sought to resolve their CVRA claims. After settlement attempts failed, Plaintiffs filed motions on March 18, 2011, which the Court is now addressing, including Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene. The CVRA aims to protect victims' rights and ensure their participation in the justice process, enumerating eight specific rights, including protection from the accused, timely notice of proceedings, and the right to fair treatment. If a prosecution is ongoing, victims can assert their rights; if not, they can initiate a new action in the relevant district court. The statute mandates that the courts and prosecutors ensure these rights are upheld.

Plaintiffs assert that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) protections apply prior to the filing of formal charges against a criminal defendant. They allege violations of their CVRA rights, specifically the rights to confer, to be treated fairly, and to receive accurate and timely notification of court proceedings. In response, Plaintiffs seek a court hearing to determine appropriate remedies, including the invalidation of a non-prosecution agreement. The United States counters that the CVRA does not apply until formal charges, such as an indictment, are filed, arguing that no charges were brought against Epstein and that the U.S. Attorney's Office complied with CVRA requirements even if it did apply.

The Court addresses whether the CVRA attaches before formal charges and concludes that it does, as the language of the statute indicates applicability to pre-charge proceedings. Specific subsections detail rights linked to "any public court proceeding involving the crime," which can include initial appearances and bond hearings that may occur before formal charges. For example, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1)(A), a defendant must be brought before a magistrate judge promptly after arrest, which might occur within twenty-four hours if arrested on a weekday. Rule 5(b) mandates the government to file a complaint promptly if a defendant is arrested without a warrant, generally interpreted as within forty-eight hours. 

Furthermore, subsection (c)(1) of the CVRA requires Department of Justice officials to notify crime victims of their rights, suggesting pre-charge applicability. Subsection (d)(3) specifies that CVRA rights can be asserted in court even if no prosecution is underway, implying those rights must attach before formal charges are filed. This interpretation aligns with other federal court decisions regarding the CVRA's scope.

In In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.2008), the court determined that victims retain rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to any prosecution. The court emphasized that victims have a reasonable right to confer with the Government's attorney and that the government should inform victims about potential criminal charges and seek their views on plea bargains. This interpretation aligns with similar conclusions from federal district courts, such as in United States v. Rubin and United States v. Okun, affirming that victims hold rights before formal charges are filed.

The court rejected the United States' argument that the CVRA applies only post-charge, noting that "court proceedings" can occur earlier and that the statute includes provisions for victims' rights during the detection and investigation stages. Additionally, the CVRA explicitly states that it does not impair prosecutorial discretion, maintaining that victims' rights primarily offer them a voice rather than a veto over prosecutorial decisions. The court clarified that while victims' pre-charge rights exist, they must yield to the government's prosecutorial discretion as outlined in the CVRA.

The Court has established that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) can be applicable before formal charges are filed. However, it requires further factual development to assess whether the specific rights claimed were violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Consequently, the Court defers its ruling on these issues pending limited discovery. 

The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request to have their facts accepted as true due to the government's failure to contest them during a previous hearing. The Plaintiffs also seek an order to prevent the U.S. Attorney's Office from withholding evidence relevant to their case, specifically information favorable to victims under the CVRA. The U.S. opposes this motion, arguing no obligation exists to provide such evidence. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledges its authority to impose discovery obligations and will allow the Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery through document requests and admissions. The Court reserves ruling on the discovery rights related to the CVRA and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, Bruce E. Reinhart seeks to intervene in the case under Rule 24(b) to rebut allegations made against him in the Plaintiffs' motion, which he claims are false and irrelevant. The Court finds that Reinhart's claims do not share a common question of law or fact with the CVRA action and therefore denies his request to intervene.

The Court addressed the Plaintiffs' claims regarding alleged violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by the U.S. Attorney's Office, specifically in relation to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. It clarified that the allegations against Reinhart do not share common questions with Plaintiffs' CVRA claims and deemed them "irrelevant," highlighting that the Plaintiffs failed to link these allegations to the relief sought. The Court ruled that even if there were commonalities, it would deny intervention to prevent frivolous proceedings aimed at vindicating reputations. Reinhart's public denial of the allegations was noted, and the Court found no grounds for further actions on this matter, including a sua sponte Rule 11 inquiry.

The Court partially granted the Plaintiffs' motion for finding CVRA violations, confirming that the CVRA can apply prior to formal charges, but deferred judgment on the merits until after discovery is completed. The motion to accept Plaintiffs' facts was denied, and a ruling on the motion to prevent withholding of evidence was postponed. Reinhart's motion to intervene or for a Rule 11 order was denied. Additionally, the Court is awaiting supplemental briefs on a related motion to intervene and will defer ruling on another motion regarding the disclosure of correspondences until the intervention matter is resolved. The Court emphasized the need for further factual development to address the issues raised in the motions.