Justice Department Request to Unseal Epstein Transcripts Seen as Distraction

The Justice Department's recent request to unseal grand jury transcripts from the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is unlikely to yield significant new information, according to former federal prosecutors. The request, made by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, aims to provide transparency to the public, but experts suggest it may be more of a distraction than a substantive move.

Attorney Sarah Krissoff, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan from 2008 to 2021, described the request as a "distraction" and noted that the administration's actions seem more about appearances than substance. The request comes amid public outcry over the administration's decision not to release additional files from the Epstein probe, despite earlier promises to do so.

Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking, died by suicide in his federal jail cell in August 2019. Maxwell, 63, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in luring girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Both former prosecutors, Krissoff and Joshua Naftalis, who served as a Manhattan federal prosecutor for 11 years, emphasized that grand jury presentations are typically brief and focused on securing an indictment rather than providing a comprehensive overview of the investigation.

Naftalis estimated that the transcripts might amount to a few hundred pages at most, while Krissoff suggested they could be as short as 60 pages. Both agreed that the transcripts would not contain the full extent of the FBI's and investigators' findings. Krissoff noted that the Southern District of New York's practice is to present only the necessary information to the grand jury, essentially "spoon-feeding" the indictment.

The former prosecutors also highlighted that grand jury witnesses in Manhattan are usually federal agents summarizing their witness interviews, which contrasts with the public perception of grand jury proceedings in some other jurisdictions. In Manhattan, federal prosecutors present the case narrowly to achieve a specific result, which may not align with the public's expectations for detailed and lengthy proceedings.

Krissoff predicted that judges presiding over the Epstein and Maxwell cases would likely reject the government's request to unseal the transcripts. She cited ongoing appeals in Maxwell's case and the need to protect the anonymity of victims in Epstein's case as potential barriers. Additionally, she noted that the 1997 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows judges wide discretion in releasing grand jury information based on public interest, might not be sufficient to convince a judge to release the transcripts in this case.

Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and Fordham Law School criminal law professor, agreed that judges might take weeks or months to rule on the request, especially given the sensitive nature of the case involving witnesses or victims of sexual abuse. She also expressed skepticism about the government's motives, suggesting that the request was more about satisfying public curiosity than about uncovering new information.

Mitchell Epner, another former federal prosecutor, described the current environment as "unprecedented" and "extraordinarily unusual," noting that the request to unseal the transcripts came just two days after the firing of Manhattan Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, who worked on the Epstein and Maxwell cases. He expressed concern that federal prosecutors might face professional consequences for refusing to align with political or personal agendas, which could undermine the independence of the Department of Justice.

Krissoff echoed these sentiments, stating that the current climate has left government employees feeling unsettled and uncertain about how things are being handled. She noted that this uncertainty is not limited to the Department of Justice but is shared by employees at other agencies as well.