- Judge ordered the unsealing of grand jury materials in Ghislaine Maxwell's case.
- Epstein Files Transparency Act mandates files related to Epstein investigations to be released by Dec. 19.
- The new law emphasizes transparency, restricting withholding due to reputational concerns.
A Manhattan federal judge on Tuesday ordered the unsealing of grand jury materials related to the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime companion of Jeffrey Epstein, who is currently in prison after being convicted in 2021 of sex trafficking a minor and other counts.
Judge Paul Engelmayer made the order in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan at the request of the Department of Justice, citing the Epstein Files Transparency Act that Congress passed almost unanimously last month, per CNBC.
The legislation mandates the disclosure of materials held by the DOJ related to its investigations of Epstein. Weeks after being arrested on federal child sex trafficking charges, Epstein died from a jailhouse suicide in August 2019.
Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being convicted in December 2021 of procuring underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein, according to CNBC.
Normally, grand jury materials are permanently sealed and in August Engelmayer denied the DOJ’s initial request to unseal materials from Maxwell’s case.
Engelmayer also ordered evidence shared in the case between the prosecution and defense to be released, per USA Today.
How the Epstein Files Transparency Act led to the release of grand jury materials
In Tuesday’s order, the judge emphasized that the Epstein Files Transparency Act “does not explicitly refer to grand jury materials,” per CNBC.
Engelmayer added, “The Court nonetheless holds — again in agreement with DOJ — that the Act textually covers the grand jury materials in this case.”
He also noted that the legislation “references Ghislaine Maxwell,” and covers files related to her case.
The act requires the Justice Department to release all of its files related to Epstein by Dec. 19, per The New York Times.
Attorney General Pam Bondi also asked another judge to unseal the grand jury material from the investigation into Epstein. The judge in that case, Richard M. Berman, has not yet ruled on that request.
The request for the records sent to Engelmayer was signed by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The motion argues that the new law shows a congressional intent to “to override some of the underlying bases for grand jury secrecy,” per The New York times.
The basis of the secrecy rule is to protect people that haven’t been charged “from the anxiety, embarrassment and public castigation that may result from disclosure.”
The new act mandates that records may not be “withheld, delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, political sensitivity, including to any governmental official, public figure or foreign dignitary,” per The New York Times.
But, the new law does allow for withholding certain information that could identify victims, or that could jeopardize an active investigation.
On Friday, a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida granted the DOJ’s request to unseal grand jury records from an investigation into Epstein that began there in 2005. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to Florida state charges that included soliciting minors for prostitution.
The Florida charges were part of a deal to avoid federal charges, according to The New York Times.
Protecting Epstein’s victims
Engelmayer did order the DOJ to install a mechanism to protect victims from inadvertent release of evidence that could identify them or invade their privacy.
Epstein’s victims have fought for years for more information about the case to be released, to determine if his powerful acquaintances had influenced his investigation or helped with his alleged trafficking, according to USA Today.
The DOJ wrote on Dec. 8 that a group of victims had unfairly accused the department of releasing personally identifiable information about victims. The department argued that the information had already previously been released, but agreed that from this point forward it would redact victim names even where they had been publicly identified.