Court Records
Filing # 101652291 E-Filed 01/14/2020 04:31:33 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL W
CASE NO. 50-2006-CF-009454AXXX
ORDER DENYING THE STATE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER UNS;. GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the State Attorneys er 16, 2019 Motion
for an Order Unsealing Grand Jury Testimony. After careful tion, the Court denies the
State's Motion for the following reasons.
Factual ro3fI6d
ie iIn 2006, the Grand Jury for the Stat F indicted Jeffrey Epstein for one count of
Felony Solicitation of Prostitution. Th ej, r Epstein and the State entered into a negotiated
settlement wherein Mr. Epstein p j ty in exchange for twelve-month sentence in county
jail. The circumstances of 's plea and sentence later became an issue of national
interest and, in respons &nor Ron DeSantis issued an Executive Order directing the Florida
Department of w En cement ("FDLE") to "initiate a preliminary inquiry beyond the work
release of and into other irregularities surrounding the prior state investigation and
the ea agreement" In this same Order, the Governor assigned Bruce Colton, State
Attonie or the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, to "discharge the duties of the Honorable,
David Aaronberg, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Juditial Circuit of Florida, as they relate to the
investigation, prosecution, and all matters related to allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein and his
assigned work release program and other irregularities." Mr. Colton has nibw_filed_the instant
Party JOINT
Page 1 Of 7 IDS*. JOB EV/ST
OATEADIAMED
Case No 2019 -CA -014681
0/JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK
CIRCUIT COURT
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 01/14/2020 04:31:33 PM
.Joint Exhibit
JOB •
CA/ArcIRIERV0P0IN BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735296
Motion on behalf of the State for the purpose of providing the grand jury records to FDLE. In the
Motion, the State represents that "(a) review of the grand jury testimony is necessary to fulfill
Governor DeSantis' assignment and required (sic) in the furtherance of justice."
The Court heard the State's Motion on January 7, 2020. At that hearing, the State
introduced testimony from Troy Cope, the FDLE Case Agent assigned to investigate t -Epstein
case pursuant to the Governor's Order. Inspector Cope testified that he curre a ass to
police reports, victim statements, emails, sworn testimony, and other law statements
obtained by law enforcement and the. State in their investigation of Epst _tn. Inspector Cope
explained that he wished to have access to the grand jury testist that be could compare the
evidence presented to the grand jury with the document dtuing his investigation. He
further testified that he hoped to learn why the jury indict Mr. Epstein for one count of
Felony Solicitation of Prostitution, an offens C i chargeable after "a third or subsequent
violation" of the solicitation statute, giv lack of a criminal record at the time. §
796.07(f)(c), Fla. Stat. (2006). Th edtor Cope, the State also submitted the Governor's
Order and the Grand Jury's i o the Court.
Based on the f e oing evidence, the State argued that FDLE needed the grand jury
testimony to " r i ettigation." When pressed by the Court as to the particular need for
the testimo ' e conceded that it did not know what it would find and, therefore, could not
a
O \,....,
predi ific actions would be taken as a result. The State speculated that if it appeared
_..)
a, le victims were purposely not called or refused to appear, it might lead to a witness n1/1\ :
tampering investigation, however, the State also admitted that it bad not made any effort to adduce
this information from other means, such as direct contact with the victims. The State also
speculated that the grand jury may have been misadvised about the nature of.a Felony Solicitation
Page 2 of 7
CA/Arnertp000:11\11 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735297
of Prostitution' charge, but again, could not articulate a particular need for this information other
•
than to further FDLE's investigation in a general sense.
Analysis
The grand jury system, which is written into the United States Constitution, dates back
centuries into the common law. Throughout its long history, secrecy has been a Integral
component of grand jury proceedings. United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 4 IS.. , 425
(1983). Grand jury secrecy serves several compelling purposes, including: ( the grand
jurors, (2) protecting the witnesses, (3) preventing the escape of a perso indi e before his arrest,
(4) preventing subornation of perjury or tampering with witne o testified before the grand
jury and then testify as a trial witnesses, (5) shielding the C of a person against whom no
indictment is filed, and (6) encouraging the un disclosure by persons who have
information. Grand Jury Fall Tenn, A.D. v. etersburg, Fla. 624 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1993) (citing Minton v. State, II . I I (Fla. 1959)). This secrecy also serves the *
interests of prospective investigal . - re; 113 So. 2d at 365 ("While, in a given case, the
reasons for secrecy may no I tger _,in`, the effect on subseouent grand jury proceedings — on
jurors, on witnesses, o he pnvaci of the system itself — of indiscriminate disclosure has been he
said to be 'of gre r mo of.'" (quoting United States v. General Motors, 15 F.R.D. 486, 488 (D.
Del. 1954)( ,,, i a added)).
k gtf, secrecy is an integral component of the grand jury, it is not absolute. The
comgto aw always recognized a "compelling" necessity exception to grand jury secrecy.
v. Superior Court, 195 P.3d 588, 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). This exception carried over
' The State also conceded that there is no decisional authority clarifying what qualitles as a prior
"violation" of the solicitation statute for purposes of Felony Solicitation of Prostitution and, therefore,
was very :matured in its misadvice hypothetical.
Page 3 of 7
CAJArcinkf9000110 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735298
into our modern system of justice and is recognized in some form by nearly' very jurisdiction in
this country. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3XE); State ex reL Ronan v. Super or Court In and For
Maricopa County 390 P.2d 109,119 (Ariz. 1964); In re Jest up's Petition, 131 A.2d 207,218 (Del.
1957); Diemen V. U.S: 725 A.2d 501, 532 (D.C. 1999); /fanglike v. State 181 N.E.2d 677, 681
(Ind. 2003); In re Grand fury opouglas Conedy,6441:4,W.2d 858,863 (Neb. 2002); P . le v. Di
Napoli 265 N.E.2d 449 (N.Y. 1970); Staley. Greer, 420:N.E.24 982, 989 (Ohio In 'di*,
this exception is codified in section 905.27(1)(e), Florida Staluteg, which p d jury
ering justice." testimony may be disclosed "when required by a court ... for the pi
§ 995.27(1), Fla. Stat.
Although the term "furthering justice" seems quit add of the exception in
both notinnon law and modem case law establishes, tff xteption is actually quite narrow—it
7
does not encompass any reason that could "f u e," but rather requires the showing of a
particularized and compelling need w ou ^ any interest in maintaining secrecy and
cannot be satisfied in another kings v. State, 495 So. 2d 13S, 137-38 (Fla. 1986)
(holding that "a:Nifty seekin f grand jury proceedings] must mike a shone showing
outweigh the public interest in secrecy" (citing alike' loges
v. Sells Eng'g, 418, 443 (1983) (emphasis added))). Such a showing must be
cbinprised an a mere surmise or speculation." Minton, 111So. 2d at 365. If a party
make wing, then the trial court may examine the .grand jury testimony in'camera and
miination of its materiality. Id. Disclosure should then be permitted only if "essential
to the attainment of justice." Brookings, 495 So.'2d at 118; Minton, 113 So. 2d at 365. There are
few Florida casts discussing the furthering justice exception to grand jury secrecy, but all confirm
its nfirrPviMss•
Page 4 Of 7
CA/Arontnirgt000,11\1 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735299
The question then becomes under what circumstances can a person, specifically an
investigating body, citing the "furthering justice" exception establish a particularized and
compelling need for grand jury records which outweighs any interest in maintaining secrecy?
Although this is a highly fact specific inquiry, several decisions issued by various New York courts
are instructive.
Ll:oAs written by one New York Court, "Mlle mere fact that the disclosu4 u t by a
government agency (even a prosecutorial agency that was itself involv
presentation) will not necessarily warrant the breach of grand, jury
general assertion that disclosure will be in the public interest.
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014) (citations omitted). Indeed, "if the 'eta' benefit of maximizing
the public's awareness could by itself trump all tit erations," there would not exist a
S"legal presumption against disclosure of gran v nce, let alone a rule providing that such
presumption may be overcome only o of a particularized and compelling need for by
to what extent, the party requ' es th
disclosure" Id. at 213. Instead, "[A tt a ust, by a factual presentation, demonstrate why, and
utes of a particular grand jury proceeding to advance the
action's or measures ta • n, or proposed (e.g. legal action, administrative inquiry or legislative
grand jury
nor will the mere
Carey, 4988 N.Y.S.2d 852
investigation), toohsurel t the public interest has been, or will be, served." Matter of Jaines v.
Donovan, 1 435, 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). (internal quotation and citation omitted).
t ry of the furthering justice exception to grand jury secrecy and ensuing case law
fron5FtDpda and around the country reflects that the exception is narrowly construed and requires
the movant movant to establish a particularized and compelling need for the records. When the movant is
an investigatory body, its need cannot simply public awareness, but must be the furtherance of a
specified course of action. Further, the need must be of such a nature that it outweighs the public
Page 5 of 7
CA/ArcIFILNEED9Pattfi BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735300
interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. Finally, the information contained in the records must
actually serve the specified need and cannot be obtained from any other source.
Conclusion
hi this case, the State has alleged the records arc necessary to "fulfill Governor DcSantis'
assignment" and has thrown out a few speculative possibilities for bow it could use the imony,
depending on what it contains, of course. Alternatively, as the State aclatowled to rhony
could serve no value other than satisfying curious minds. It also has acknos it has not
exhausted all other avenues in attempting to obtain the information it ks. Thus, the Court finds
that State has failed to make a strong showing of a particula d compelling need for the
grand jury testimony. Minton, 113 So. 2d at 365.
AtIn arriving at this conclusion, the Court is tn. e State is simply tying its best to
effectuate the Governor's Order and is in no unting the worthiness of that task. The
Court is also not foreclosing the possibi
the release of the grand jury record
as it stands, the State has fa'
testimony. According) it is htleby
ORDE that. e States December 16, 2019 Motion for an Order Unsealing Grand
' a State may, in the future, be able establish that
tt. (are actually necessary to further justice. However,
e a predicate showing for the release of the grand jury
Jury Testi NIED without prejudice.
D ORDERED, in
this day of January 2020.
at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
=
000:104/17C effete 0 /CC COtT0/
KRISTA MARX
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Page 6 of .7
CA/AraFIMEDPPMA BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735301
COPIES TO:
M. Levering ASA, 19°' Circuit via email SA19eServideAsadl9.Orq
Jack Goldberger, Esq., via email jooldbemerOaawoa.com & smahohavnattwoa.ccim
Robert Critton, Esq. via email rcritatlawcic.com
Ai r Kuvin E ., via email skuvinO800ooldlaw.com
J. Esq., via email [Email Redacted]
Jeffrey Herman, sq., via email jhemsanahermanlaw.com
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq., via email tleopoldacohenmilstein.corri
A.H. by US mail at confidential address — to be sent by State Atty. Office, 1 wt
A.D. by US mail at confidential address — to be sent by State Atty. Office p tr Cir it
S.G. by US mail at confidential address—to be sent by State Atty. Offi Circuit
Gregory Parkinson by US mail to 7022 Venetian Way, West Palm B 3406
Page 7 of 7
CA/AMPilliE90399114 BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 2:57:43 PM
EFTA02735302