‘A Tale Of National Disgrace’: Court Rules Against Epstein Accusers, Despite Bashing Prosecution For Light Florida Sentence

(Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Shelby Talcott Senior White House Correspondent
Font Size:

A federal appeals court voted against accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s accusers Tuesday, announcing that prosecutors did not violate a federal victims rights law.

The Atlanta-based court of appeals decided 2-1 against Epstein’s accusers. It decided that prosecutors didn’t violate the law when they failed to inform his accusers about a deal that diminished the state charges against Epstein.

Tuesday’s ruling overturns a judge’s ruling last year, Politico reported. That ruling was part of why former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta resigned. Acosta was the U.S. Attorney for Southern Florida when the sweetheart deal with Epstein was made, which allowed him to spend just 13 months in a county jail and register as a sex offender in the state.

Epstein’s light sentence came despite him being accused of sex trafficking dozens of girls in Florida. Epstein was arrested again in New York in July 2019 on sex trafficking charges. He died of an apparent suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in August.

The court did find that prosecutors seem to have intentionally led Epstein’s victims astray regarding the deal, but decided that it was not illegal, according to Politico. (RELATED: Katie Pavlich Ties ABC’s Epstein Cover-Up To Clintons, Stephanopoulos)

“Because the government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Epstein, the CVRA was never triggered. It’s not a result we like, but it’s the result we think the law requires,” Judge Kevin Newsom, joined by Judge Gerald Tjoflat, wrote.

Newsom described the case as “a tale of national disgrace” and bashed prosecutors for mistreating Epstein’s accusers, according to Politico. Newsom even attacked the media for “essentially” ignoring Epstein’s case for years.

Judge Frank Hull was the lone judge who voted that prosecutors did violate the law.

“The Majority’s contorted statutory interpretation materially revises the statute’s plain text and guts victims’ rights under the CVRA. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in the CVRA’s plain text requires the Majority’s result,” according to Hull.