Acosta's Silence: Victims In The Dark?

In 2019, a federal judge ruled that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, as a federal prosecutor, broke the law by not informing victims of a plea agreement in a sex trafficking case against billionaire New York hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was accused in 2008 of organizing a network of underage girls to engage in sex acts and enlisting girls to recruit more victims. Acosta's handling of the case, in which he allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state prostitution charges and serve 13 months in jail, was deemed a national disgrace by a three-judge panel. The ruling led to renewed calls for Acosta's resignation and sparked investigations into his conduct as a prosecutor.

Acosta's deal with Epstein broke the Crime Victims' Rights Act

In 2008, US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, approved a federal non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. This was a plea deal that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to two state prostitution charges and one state charge of solicitation, in exchange for a federal non-prosecution agreement. Crucially, this deal was conducted without consulting the victims.

In 2019, a federal judge ruled that the non-prosecution agreement was invalid and that Acosta's deal with Epstein broke the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA). The CVRA requires that victims of federal crimes are kept informed and given the opportunity to be heard in court throughout legal proceedings. The ruling stated that the victims should have been notified of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement in advance of its signing, to give them the chance to influence its terms.

The ruling also found that Acosta's office had illegally lied to the victims by telling them that a sex trafficking investigation was still ongoing when, in fact, it had been closed.

Despite the ruling that the CVRA had been violated, the victims were not entitled to compensation from the Justice Department. The judge, Kenneth Marra, said that the Crime Victims' Rights Act did not authorise restitution in this case.

Acosta's actions were deemed completely indefensible

In 2019, US District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that Alexander Acosta's actions as a federal prosecutor in Miami broke the law in the Jeffrey Epstein underage sex case. Acosta, who was serving as the US Attorney in Miami, brokered a plea deal with Epstein's lawyers in 2007, allowing him to plead guilty to two state prostitution charges and serve just 13 months in Palm Beach County Jail. Crucially, Acosta kept this agreement from Epstein's victims, some of whom were as young as 13.

Judge Marra's ruling also highlighted the problematic nature of Acosta's decision to conceal the agreement and mislead the victims into believing that federal prosecution was still possible. Marra's opinion noted that the government's actions were misleading and that the prosecutors had spent "untold hours negotiating the terms" with Epstein's attorneys while sharing "scant information" with the victims.

Acosta's conduct was widely criticised and led to renewed calls for his resignation as Labor Secretary, a position to which he had been appointed by President Donald Trump. Acosta's handling of the Epstein case was described as "a poster child for an entirely different justice system for crime victims of wealthy defendants" by Judge Frank Hull and a clear violation of the CVRA by victims' advocates.

Acosta's deal with Epstein was completely unprecedented

In 2008, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, then a federal prosecutor in Florida, brokered a plea deal with financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. Epstein pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges and served 13 months in Palm Beach County jail. The deal was criticised for being unusually lenient.

Acosta's deal with Epstein has been called "completely unprecedented" and "completely indefensible" by former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Honig said that the deal was unusual and unprecedented in several respects: the short term of prison time Epstein faced, the fact that Acosta did not notify the victims, and the fact that Acosta signed a deal that immunized Epstein's co-conspirators.

Honig also said that Acosta's failure to notify the victims violated federal law, and that even a first-year prosecutor would know better than to do this. He suggested that Acosta must have intentionally disregarded this obligation.

Acosta defended his handling of the 2008 case, saying that they wanted to see Epstein go to jail and that there was value in getting a guilty plea and having him register as a sex offender. He also said that the victims in 2008 were reluctant to come forward and that some were not told about the plea agreement because prosecutors were trying to get monetary compensation for them.

In 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that Acosta and the prosecutors did not break the law in negotiating the plea agreement while keeping the victims in the dark. However, the ruling criticised the prosecutors for their handling of the case, calling it a "national disgrace".

Acosta's deal with Epstein was politically sensitive

In 2008, US attorney Acosta approved a federal non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, allowing him to plead guilty to a single state charge of solicitation and two state prostitution charges. This was conducted without consulting Epstein's victims, and was later ruled illegal by a federal judge for violating the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta's deal with Epstein was politically sensitive for several reasons. Firstly, Acosta was a member of the Republican Party and had been appointed to several high-profile positions by President George W. Bush. Secondly, Epstein was a politically connected financier and friend of President Trump, which brought scrutiny to Acosta's handling of the case. Thirdly, the deal was kept secret from the victims, which was criticised by victims, former prosecutors, and the retired Palm Beach police chief. Finally, the deal granted immunity to four named co-conspirators and any unnamed "potential co-conspirators", effectively shutting down an ongoing FBI probe into Epstein's sex crimes. This led to accusations that Acosta was protecting powerful people connected to Epstein.

Acosta's deal with Epstein resurfaced in 2019, when Epstein was arrested on new sex trafficking charges. This led to renewed and harsher criticism of Acosta, as well as calls for his resignation as Secretary of Labor. Acosta initially defended his handling of the case, arguing that the victims in 2008 were reluctant to come forward and that prosecutors were trying to get monetary compensation for them. However, he faced a public outcry and eventually resigned from his position on July 19, 2019. An internal review by the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility found that Acosta had shown "poor judgment" in granting Epstein a non-prosecution agreement and failing to notify Epstein's victims.

Acosta's deal with Epstein was a clear violation of the law

In 2019, a federal judge ruled that Acosta's deal with Epstein was a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Acosta, who was the US Attorney in Miami at the time, had negotiated a lenient and secretive plea agreement with Epstein, allowing him to plead guilty to two state prostitution charges and serve just 13 months in county jail. The deal was kept from more than 30 of Epstein's victims, some as young as 13, who were not given the chance to attend Epstein's sentencing and demand a harsher punishment.

The judge, Kenneth Marra, stated that the prosecutors had violated the CVRA by not informing the victims of the agreement and by misleading them into believing that the FBI's sex trafficking case against Epstein was still ongoing when it had actually been closed. Marra's ruling revealed emails between prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers, which included high-powered attorneys such as Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr, discussing keeping information from the victims.

However, a later ruling by a federal appeals court found that the prosecutors, led by Acosta, did not break the law as there were no federal charges filed against Epstein, and thus the CVRA was not triggered. Despite this, the court criticised the handling of the case, calling it a "national disgrace".

Frequently asked questions