Major Twist in Jeffrey Epstein Case Shocks Those Digging for Answers

A federal judge in New York has just. denied the government's bid to unseal. grand jury materials in the Galain. Maxwell criminal case. It's a decision. that may frustrate those hoping for new. revelations about Jeffrey Epstein's. alleged network. But is this evidence of. a cover up? Or really, does it make. legal sense? Time to break down the. ruling, what this means, and what we. should be looking out for next. Welcome. to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Well, a federal judge in New York has.

denied the government's petition to. unseal the grand jury materials in the. Galileain Maxwell criminal case. Now, I. am personally not shocked by this. And I. will tell you what, from a legal. perspective, from a legal point of view, it makes sense. So, for those of you who. are skeptical of what is going on, right, might believe this is further. evidence of a cover up to hide evidence. against potentially other people, right, from coming out, the elites. I'm gonna. analyze this 31page decision from US. District Court Judge Paul A. Angel.

Engelmire. Okay? Because here's the. thing. I think going through this. opinion, picking out the big parts is. really, really important, right? It. shines a light on this not being a cover. up, but from a legal point of view, it. makes sense why the grand jury materials. will not be released. Now, remember the. context of what is happening. People are. hungry for more information about. whether deceased convicted sex offender. Jeffrey Epstein had a client list. Were. the elites or prominent figures a part. of Epstein's purported child sex ring? What other information is out there that.

we haven't seen? And this comes after a. ton of blowback, including from. supporters of President Donald Trump. after the FBI and the DOJ released a. memo last month that basically said. after reviewing Epstein and Maxwell. materials in their possession, there was. nothing else to really release for the. public and no one else is going to be. charged in this case. Well, after that. blowback and accusations of a cover up, President Trump ordered Attorney General. Pam Bondi to release quote any and all. pertinent grand jury testimony in the.

Epstein case. See, the problem with. that, in my view, and we're going to get. into this, is when this was announced, I. said this isn't going to satisfy the. questions that people have. The grand. jury testimony is going to be very. limited. It's going to be very specific. And if you look at the judge's opinion, that is exactly what is going on. So, let me go through the opinion. You'll. hear the reasoning. We'll talk about it. It begins, quote, "The policy that. proceedings before a grand jury shall. generally remain secret is older than. our nation itself." So why are grand.

jury proceedings secret? Remember what a. grand jury is? This is a set of people. who through a majority vote have to. determine if there is probable cause. Doesn't have to be unanimous. There has. to be probable cause that a crime was. committed. So is there enough to return. an indictment? says the purposes served. by grand jury secrecy include to prevent. the escape of those whose indictment may. be contemplated. Right? You don't want. to tip anybody off that there's an. investigation going. To ensure the. utmost freedom to the grand jury in its. deliberations and to prevent persons.

subject to indictment or their friends. from importuning the grand jurors, right? No undue influence on the grand. jurors. To prevent subordination of. perjury or tampering with the witnesses. who may testify before grand jury and. later appear at the trial of those. indicted by it. to encourage free and. untrable disclosures by persons who have. information with respect to the. commission of crimes and to protect the. innocent accused who is exonerated from. disclosure of the fact that he has been. under investigation and from the expense. of standing trial when there was no.

probability of guilt. Now that's. important. That's an important point. Basically, if a case is taken to a grand. jury and they don't return an. indictment, the accused shouldn't have. to live with it being publicly revealed. that he or she was under investigation. and what the evidence was against him. This is about fairness. This is about. secrecy. This is about maintaining the. integrity of this process. Now, I say. all that, but there are exceptions. The. second circuit has recognized that in. special circumstances, the disclosure of.

grand jury materials may be appropriate. even where it is not authorized. The. second circuit developed this doctrine. in three cases where disclosure was. sought of grand jury matters claimed to. be of unusual historical or public. interest. Argument here could be my. gosh, a lot of people are interested in. the Epstein Maxwell case. Now, we've. been following this Epstein saga for a. while. And the reason that we can do. this, the reason we can stay on top of a. story like this is because of the. amazing support that we get from our. sponsor, Morgan and Morgan. This is.

America's largest injury law firm. This. is a firm with over a,000 attorneys. You. know why? Because they win a lot. They. have recovered over $25 billion for more. than $500,000 clients. In the past few. months, a client in Florida received $12. million after the insurance company. offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, the client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insured $650,000 offer. Another. client in Pennsylvania received $29. million after being offered only. $500,000. And even if you think your.

case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for. what you deserve? Morgan andorggan makes. it so simple. You can start a claim from. your phone in just eight clicks. So if. you're injured, you can easily start a. claim at forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. by clicking the link below or scanning. the QR code on screen. The opinion goes on to say, quote, "The. doctrine is to be applied only in. exceptional circumstances, and it does. not justify granting quote, garden. variety petitions for disclosure. No.

exception authorizes the disclosure the. government proposes here of subject to. redactions, all testimony and exhibits. before the two grand juries that. indicted Galain Maxwell. The. government's motion to unseal does not. contend otherwise. It does not argue. that these materials would aid federal, state, military, tribal, or foreign law. enforcement, or would be relevant to. national security officials, another. grand jury, or another judicial. proceeding. Nor does the government or. Maxwell argue that the materials would.

reveal a ground to dismiss the. indictment against her. Any and such. motion to dismiss on this basis today. would very likely be futile because. Maxwell's conviction at trial renders. all but the most serious errors in the. grand jury proceedings harmless. The. government instead invokes the special. circumstances doctrine on the ground. that there is, like I said before, an. abundant public interest in obtaining. additional information about Epstein and. Maxwell's crimes and the DOJ and FBI's.

investigation into them. However, the. Maxwell grand jury materials the. government represents are critical. pieces of an important moment in our. nation's history, and the time for the. public to guess at what they contain. should end. The government's invocation. of special circumstances, however, fails. at the threshold. Its entire premise. that the Maxwell grand jury materials. would bring to light meaningful new. information about Epstein's and. Maxwell's crimes or the government's. investigation into them is demonstrably.

false. So now you'd be saying why? Quote, first the grand juries in this. case were not used for investigative. purposes. They did not hear testimony. from any firsthand witness to any event. at issue. They did not hear testimony. from any victim, eyewitness, suspect, or. even a records custodian. The grand. juries met instead for the purpose of. returning an indictment. Each grand jury. received evidence on a single day. On. that day, it heard testimony from one. person, a law enforcement agent who.

acting as a summary witness. So, this is. basically somebody who actually. summarizes all the evidence, testified. to information obtained in the. government's investigation to support. the charges in the proposed indictment. The agent responding to tightly. structured questions from an assistant. United States attorney provided highly. abbreviated hearsay accounts of the. statements of select witnesses, meaning. the victims on whom counts in the. proposed indictment were based. The. agent led the jury through a PowerPoint. of exhibits, photographs, business.

records. At the end of the testimony, the agent testified that he or she had. not disclosed all that he or she knew, but had only responded to the A USA's. questions. Afterward, each grand jury. voted to return the proposed indictment. Let me stop right there. This is totally. normal. This is exactly what you see in. grand juries across the country. This is. a limited presentation of evidence by. the prosecution. Yes, it's one-sided, but that's the purpose of it. It's not.

an examination of all the evidence. prosecutors are going to introduce at. trial. They just need to present enough. evidence to get back an indictment. And. in this case, and we're going to get. into this, where it was only about. Epstein and Maxwell and nobody else, this was a very limited presentation. with very limited testimony. and why I. said at the very beginning when it was. announced they're going to release the. grand jury materials. It wasn't going to. address anything that people were. looking for. In fact, here's what the.

court says. The evidence put before the. Maxwell grand juries is today with only. very minor exceptions a matter of public. record. This is an important point too. that remember how much has already come. out in this case. Even a few months ago. when they talked about, you know, the. Epstein records volume one, all of that. we already knew through releases from. prior litigation, the flight logs, the. contact list. We all knew that. If. anybody's been following Galileain. Maxwell's trial, they would have seen. what came out. If you followed civil.

lawsuits, you would have seen what has. come out. So that's when the court says. all of this is already part of the. public record. And the court says the. government admitted as much in response. to the court's order. The enclosed. annotated transcripts show that much of. the information provided during the. course of the grand jury testimony, with. the exception of the identities of. certain witnesses, was made publicly. available at Maxwell's trial, which by. the way was fully reported on or has. otherwise been publicly reported through. the public statements of victims and. witnesses. The court's review confirmed.

that unsealing the grand jury materials. would not reveal new information of any. consequence. In response to the court's. order, the government supplied the court. with a binder highlighting any. information that the government had been. unable to determine as public. Only. scattered words, clauses, occasional. sentences are highlighted. These items. are few and far between. The highlighted. snippets supply at most tertiary details. about the same conduct that was the. focus of Maxwell's month-long trial. The.

same is so for the exhibits put before. the grand juries. Save inconsequential. portions of a few exhibits. These were. received in evidence at Maxwell's trial. Some were reproduced in the Maxwell. indictments. A member of the public. familiar with the Maxwell trial record. who reviewed the grand jury materials. that the government proposes to Enseil. would thus learn next to nothing new. The materials do not identify any person. other than Epstein and Maxwell as having. had sexual contact with a minor. They do.

not discuss or identify any client of. Epsteines or Maxwells. They do not. reveal any heretofor unknown means or. methods of Epstein's or Maxwell's. crimes. They do not reveal new venues at. which their crimes occur. They do not. reveal new sources of their wealth. They. do not explore the circumstances of. Epstein's death. They do not reveal the. path of the government's investigation. In other words, everything the public's. looking for. This ain't it. This isn't. going to be it. Remember, Glain Maxwell. was prosecuted for sex trafficking. minors over a 10-year period to solely.

Jeffrey Epstein. That's what that. criminal case was about. So, what we're. saying is none of this should be. surprising. This is standard for a grand. jury and this is standard for a case. like this. And the judge said, "Yeah, the trial consisted of testimony of. victims, law enforcement, photos, items. collected from Epstein's homes, flight. logs, address book, but again, all. public record, all reported on." The one. colorable argument under that doctrine. for unsealing in this case, in fact, is. that doing so would expose as.

disingenuous the government's public. explanations for moving to unseal. A. member of the public, appreciating that. the Maxwell grand jury materials do not. contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the government's. motion for their unsealing was aimed not. at transparency, but at diversion, aimed. not at full disclosure, but at the. illusion of such. This court gave. careful consideration to unsealing the. Maxwell grand jury materials on a. similar rationale. But with the. government having now conceded that the. information it proposes to release is.

redundant of the public record that this. information was made publicly available. at Maxwell's trial or has otherwise been. publicly reported. The public interest. in testing the government's bonafidees. does not require the extraordinary step. of unsealing grand jury records. without. any need to review the grand jury. materials. The public can evaluate for. itself the government's asserted basis. for making this motion. So in other. words, we don't have to unseal anything. The fact that the government just. admitted there's nothing new. You. conclude what you want about why the. government had moved to unseal these.

materials. And then the court goes. through a number of factors to determine. if unsealing is warranted. Number one, identity of the party seeking. disclosure. So normally the government's. position is given great weight. However, here the motion apparently wasn't filed. by the DOJ trial team but by the deputy. attorney general alone in a what they. call as a hasty and irregular manner. without supporting materials or victim. notification. So this factor according.

to the court favors disclosure but was. given limited weight due to procedural. irregularities and a lack of compelling. need to opposition from Galileain. Maxwell. Right? She's the defendant. opposes unsealing because she has an. ongoing appeal and that's important. This is where the court acknowledged her. objection, assigned it limited weight. because she hasn't seen the materials. She may be unaware if they're. duplicative of trial evidence. But. remember, she has an ongoing appeal. She's trying to get the Supreme Court to. hear her case. She doesn't want to have.

anything come out that could jeopardize. that. If her convictions are thrown out. and she gets a new trial with a new. jury, she doesn't want any of this to. affect that jury. It's an interesting. factor. Another one is purpose of the. disclosure. The strongest factor here. against unsealing because the materials. according to the court are not. historically significant. Offer no new. information beyond what was presented at. Maxwell's public trial that the public. interest argument was deemed too vague, unsupported by the actual contents of. the grand jury transcripts. What about.

specificity of the request? Well, the. government seeks blanket disclosure of. all grand jury materials. The court said. this was broad. It was untailored. It It. weighs against unsealing timing. Another. factor. The grand jury met only about. five years ago. The trial was under four. years ago. So this contrasts with cases. where disclosure was granted decades. later. This factor weighs against. unsealing. Status of the principles and. the families while Maxwell still alive.

could theoretically be harmed by. disclosure. As we talked about, the. content is already public. So this. factor is kind of neutral. Extent of. prior disclosure. Most of the grand jury. material has already been made public. during the trial. So, this factor. supports unsealing, but the court. balanced it against systemic concerns. Living witnesses, the law enforcement. agents who testified are alive, but. their identities could be redacted. This. factor is neutral. Need for secrecy. The. proposed redactions would protect. privacy. This factor is neutral. Victim's perspectives. While victims.

largely support disclosure, provided. identities are protected. However, the. court notes that their support seems. based on the mistake and belief that the. materials contain new information. This. factor would slightly favor unsealing, but you know, there's reservations. there. And then, of course, the systemic. interest in grand jury secrecy. The. court emphasized the importance of. maintaining grand jury secrecy for. future proceedings. You don't want to. set a dangerous precedent that. disclosing these materials would do. that. It expands what we mean by special.

circumstances, that exception. So this. factor weighs heavily against unsealing. and in the end the judge denied the. motion to unseal. And of course it. becomes a question is this a good thing. or a bad thing for the Trump. administration. Right? The president has. been accused of downplaying the. significance of the Epstein materials. not revealing that there's more there. And there's of course what's happening. with President Trump suing the Wall. Street Journal reporting that he sent a. body controversial birthday letter to. Epstein in 2003. He adamantly denies.

that. So, here's the question. Can they. just say, "We tried to release certain. things. The judge wouldn't allow us to. do so." That might be an argument. And. now you talk about what happens now. Well, NBC is reporting that a similar. DOJ request to unseal records in the. case against Epstein is pending before. another judge. I can't imagine. I'm sure. there's a possibility, but I can't. imagine there would be a disagreement. here. I think this is an incredibly. compelling argument and I wonder if the. other court would ultimately agree, but. you also wonder, is the administration.

really going to fight this? Or again, say, "Hey, we tried our best. The court. disagrees. That's it." That may be it. We'll watch and see. All right, before. we wrap things up, little programming. alert. I'm going to be hosting Quuomo. tonight on NewsNation, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. And one of the things that. we're going to be doing is taking your. calls. So, about any case that we have. covered here on Sidebar, any of the big. true crime cases, call in tonight, 8:00. p.m. Eastern. and I'll be filling in. hosting Cuomo on NewsNation. I'll put. the call-in number on a social media. post and you'll make sure to call in and.

ask some questions. I'll see you then. And that is all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us and as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get. your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll. speak to you next time. [Music].