CVRA Ruling: Doe v. United States — NPA Violated Victims' Rights (February 2019)
Judge Kenneth Marra's ruling finding that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by excluding victims from the plea bargaining process.
Overview
On February 21, 2019, Judge Kenneth Marra of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
The ruling came after more than a decade of litigation by victims' attorneys Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, who argued that prosecutors had illegally excluded victims from the plea bargaining process.
The CVRA Violation
What the Law Required
The Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) grants crime victims specific rights, including:
- The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding involving a plea
- The right to be treated with fairness and respect
- The right to be notified of plea negotiations
- The right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case
What Prosecutors Did
According to Judge Marra's ruling:
- Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida negotiated the NPA without notifying identified victims
- Prosecutors deliberately kept the agreement secret from victims
- When victims' attorneys inquired about the case, they were told the investigation was ongoing — even as the NPA was being finalized
- The government's conduct was described as a violation of the victims' statutory rights
The Ruling's Impact
What the Court Found
Judge Marra's opinion established:
- The government "violated the rights of victims" by failing to consult them before entering the NPA
- Prosecutors had a legal obligation to notify victims and allow them to be heard
- The concealment of the NPA from victims was inconsistent with the CVRA's requirements
- The victims' decade-long legal fight to establish these violations was justified
What the Court Could Not Do
Despite finding a CVRA violation, the court's remedial power was limited:
- The NPA had already been executed and Epstein had completed his sentence
- The court could not rescind the NPA retroactively
- The immunity provisions for co-conspirators remained in effect
- The ruling served as a legal determination of the violation but did not directly undo its consequences
The Broader Significance
The CVRA ruling had several important effects:
- Validated victims' claims — After more than 10 years of litigation, victims were officially vindicated
- Documented prosecutorial failure — The ruling created a permanent record of how the NPA violated federal law
- Revived public attention — The ruling contributed to renewed interest that preceded Epstein's July 2019 arrest
- Informed legislative reform — The ruling's findings informed the Epstein Files Transparency Act's victim notification provisions
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007 | NPA negotiated without victim notification |
| 2008 | Victims begin CVRA legal challenge |
| 2008-2019 | Decade of litigation |
| February 21, 2019 | Judge Marra rules NPA violated CVRA |
| July 6, 2019 | Epstein arrested by SDNY on separate federal charges |