Acosta's Plea Deal: How the SDFL U.S. Attorney Shielded Epstein

Key Findings

• A non-prosecution agreement signed in September 2007 "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida" barred federal prosecution of Epstein
• The agreement included a confidentiality clause that prevented Epstein's alleged victims from learning about it for nine months
• Court records show the U.S. Attorney's Office sent letters to victims falsely stating the case "is currently under investigation" after the agreement had already been signed
• A federal court subsequently found the U.S. Attorney's Office had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA)
• Acosta later resigned as U.S. Secretary of Labor in July 2019 following renewed scrutiny of the deal

Background

R. Alexander Acosta served as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 to 2009. During this period, his office negotiated and executed one of the most criticized prosecutorial agreements in recent American legal history — a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that foreclosed federal charges in exchange for a state-level plea.

Acosta would later serve in the Cabinet of President Donald Trump as Secretary of Labor, a position he held until July 12, 2019 — six days after Epstein's arrest by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on federal sex trafficking charges. Acosta resigned amid renewed public attention on the 2007 agreement.

The full legal record of what Acosta's office negotiated — and how — is documented across FLSD court filings spanning more than a decade of litigation by Epstein's alleged victims.

What the Documents Show

A 2011 federal court motion by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson, provides the most detailed account of what Acosta's office agreed to and how it was implemented. The motion for a finding of CVRA violations states:

"It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he committed against the victims (as well as against many other minor girls)."

The document identifies the core legal problem:

"Rather than confer with the victims about this non-prosecution agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a 'confidentiality' provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims."

Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims have an explicit right "to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case." By agreeing to keep the NPA secret from victims, court records suggest the Acosta-led office violated this statutory right.

The False Letters

The most documented aspect of the Acosta office's conduct involves letters sent to alleged victims that court records characterize as false. According to the CVRA motion:

"The Office went so far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notification letter to the victims informing them that the 'case is currently under investigation.' In fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office had already resolved the case three months earlier by signing the non-prosecution agreement."

The pattern continued:

"Again on May 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet another victim notification letter to a recognized victim informing her that the 'case is currently under investigation' and that it 'can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation.'"

The second letter was sent approximately two weeks before Epstein entered his state guilty plea on June 30, 2008 — a plea that was itself part of the NPA arrangement Acosta's office had helped structure nine months earlier.

The NPA's Authority and Scope

A 2019 court filing by Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in the same FLSD case describes the NPA's explicit language regarding Acosta's authority:

"The NPA's plain terms directly limit the agreement to 'this District.' See NPA at 2 (noting that the agreement was signed 'on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida' and requires that 'prosecution in this District for [various federal offenses] shall be deferred' and that no federal prosecution of Epstein 'will be instituted in this District')."

This geographic limitation — applying only to the Southern District of Florida — would later become the legal basis for Epstein's 2019 federal indictment by the SDNY, which was not bound by the Florida agreement.

Epstein's Compliance Issues

Even within the framework of the agreement, a June 2009 DOJ letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office to Epstein's defense attorneys reveals that Acosta's office believed Epstein repeatedly breached the agreement's terms:

"There have been several instances of breaches by Mr. Epstein of the letter and spirit of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing."

The letter specifically notes that "from the start... Mr. Epstein did not use his 'best efforts' to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced within the time frame set by the Agreement. After several appeals were made throughout the Department of Justice resulting in a nine-month delay, the U.S. Attorney's Office had to remind Mr. Epstein of his obligation."

The Court's Finding

FLSD documents from 2019 confirm that a federal court ultimately found the U.S. Attorney's Office had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The Jane Doe reply brief states:

"This Court has previously determined that Jane Doe 1 and 2's CVRA rights to confer with prosecutors about the case and the NPA were violated."

The court also found, according to the same document, that Epstein himself was aware of and participated in concealing the agreement from victims:

"The Court's Findings About Epstein Counsel's Awareness of Concealment of the Non-Prosecution Agreement are Well-Supported and Unchallenged."

And further:

"Through Counsel, Epstein Was a Party to the Illegal Concealment of the Non-Prosecution Agreement."

The Privilege Log Dispute

FLSD docket records from June 2015 document the ongoing litigation over government documents related to the NPA negotiation. A Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana covered Bates Numbers P-013970 through P-014923, with entries dating to the critical November–December 2006 period when the NPA was being negotiated. Many of these documents were claimed as "Work Product" or "Investigative" privilege, keeping internal DOJ deliberations from public view.

Acosta's Defense and Resignation

When the Miami Herald's 2018 investigative series renewed public attention on the plea deal, Acosta publicly defended his office's decision, arguing the state-level plea represented an appropriate resolution given the evidentiary landscape at the time and the state's responsibility for the case. He maintained this position through his service as Secretary of Labor.

Following Epstein's July 6, 2019 arrest by SDNY — on charges including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors — public and congressional pressure on Acosta intensified. He resigned from the Cabinet on July 12, 2019.

What's Still Missing

Key aspects of the NPA negotiation remain shielded by the privilege log:

• Internal DOJ deliberations about whether to offer the NPA and on what terms
• Communications between Acosta and senior DOJ officials about the agreement
• The complete list of co-conspirators covered by the agreement's immunity provisions
• The full record of why victims were not notified, and who made that decision

Source Documents