Prosecutor Says Judge Cannot Appoint Expert in Epstein Document Release

Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor declared Friday that a federal judge lacks the authority to appoint a neutral expert to oversee the public release of documents related to the sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton submitted a letter to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer rejecting a request made by two congressional representatives who had expressed “urgent and grave concerns” about the slow disclosure process.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, the cosponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, had petitioned the court earlier this week, alleging that “criminal violations have taken place” in the document release process that began last month.

The lawmakers are concerned that only about 12,000 documents out of an estimated 2 million have been released thus far, a pace they described as a “flagrant violation” of the law’s requirements and one that has caused “serious trauma to survivors” of Epstein’s abuse.

Clayton, however, argued in his response that the representatives lack legal standing with the court to seek such “extraordinary” relief as the appointment of a special master and independent monitor. He emphasized that Engelmayer “lacks the authority” to grant such a request, particularly because the congressional representatives are not parties to the criminal case that led to Maxwell’s December 2021 sex trafficking conviction.

Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for recruiting girls and women for Epstein to abuse and for aiding in that abuse. Epstein died in August 2019 in a federal jail in New York City while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.

In response to Clayton’s letter, Khanna issued a statement saying the U.S. Attorney had “misconstrued” their intent. “We are informing the Court of serious misconduct by the Department of Justice that requires a remedy, one we believe this Court has the authority to provide, and which victims themselves have requested,” Khanna stated.

“Our purpose is to ensure that DOJ complies with its representations to the Court and with its legal obligations under our law,” he added.

The Justice Department has defended the slow pace of document release, explaining that extensive redactions are necessary to protect the identities of abuse victims. Clayton indicated in his letter that the department expects to update the court “again shortly” regarding its progress in turning over documents from the Epstein and Maxwell investigative files.

The congressional representatives, unconvinced by the government’s explanation, had requested the court appoint an independent monitor with the authority to ensure all documents and electronically stored information are “immediately made public.” They further suggested that this monitor should have the power to prepare reports about “the true nature and extent of the document production and whether improper redactions or conduct have taken place.”

The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between government transparency, judicial authority, and victim protection in high-profile cases. The Epstein Files Transparency Act was specifically designed to bring to light the full scope of Epstein’s criminal enterprise, which allegedly involved numerous wealthy and powerful individuals.

The public release of these documents has been closely watched by media organizations, victims’ advocates, and legal experts, as they could potentially reveal new information about who was involved in Epstein’s activities and how his operation functioned for so many years despite previous investigations.

As the legal battle over document disclosure continues, survivors of Epstein’s abuse remain in limbo, waiting for the full truth to emerge about one of the most notorious sex trafficking operations in recent history.