--- alias: - In re Wild - In re Courtney Wild - In re Wild (en banc) - Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States - Does v. United States - Doe v. United States (CVRA) category: Law Enforcement & Legal created: 2026-09-25 end: 2022-02-22 location: West Palm Beach, Florida relations: - fn: 2 reverse: true role: petitioners' counsel start: 2008-07-28 type: participant_in with: '[[Paul Cassell]]' - fn: 2 reverse: true role: petitioners' counsel start: 2008-08-08 type: participant_in with: '[[Jay Howell]]' - fn: 2 reverse: true role: respondent's counsel start: 2008-07-09 type: participant_in with: '[[U.S. Attorney''s Office for the Southern District of Florida]]' - fn: 4 reverse: true role: proposed intervenor start: 2011-04-07 type: participant_in with: '[[Jay Lefkowitz]]' - fn: 4 reverse: true role: proposed intervenor start: 2011-04-07 type: participant_in with: '[[Roy Black]]' - fn: 4 reverse: true role: proposed intervenor and movant for sanctions start: 2011-05-03 type: participant_in with: '[[Bruce Reinhart]]' - fn: 4 reverse: true role: proposed limited intervenor start: 2011-09-02 type: participant_in with: '[[Jeffrey Epstein]]' - fn: 11 reverse: true role: author of the en banc majority opinion start: 2021-04-15 type: participant_in with: '[[Kevin Newsom]]' start: 2008-07-07 summary: Crime Victims' Rights Act case filed in 2008 by Epstein victims over his secret non-prosecution agreement, which won a 2019 violation finding but no remedy, and failed 7-4 before the en banc Eleventh Circuit. tags: - Event - FederalCase - CrimeVictimsRightsAct - JeffreyEpstein - NonProsecutionAgreement - SouthernDistrictOfFlorida - EleventhCircuit updated: 2026-09-25 --- Doe v. United States (No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) is the case opened in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 7, 2008 by an emergency petition under the [Crime Victims' Rights Act](/concepts/crime-victims-rights-act/), 18 U.S.C. 3771, filed for the victim of [Jeffrey Epstein](/people/jeffrey-epstein/) then known as Jane Doe 1, later identified as [Courtney Wild](/people/courtney-wild/), and joined by Jane Doe 2. It ran before Judge [Kenneth Marra](/people/kenneth-marra/) for eleven years. In February 2019 Marra held that federal prosecutors had violated the Act by concealing the [Epstein non-prosecution agreement](/events/epstein-non-prosecution-agreement/); after Epstein's death he denied every remedy. Wild's mandamus petition, In re Wild (No. 19-13843), was denied by the en banc Eleventh Circuit on April 15, 2021 by seven votes to four, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2022.[^1][^2][^3] ### The Petition [Bradley Edwards](/people/bradley-edwards/) filed the petition a week after Epstein's June 30, 2008 state guilty plea. Marra ordered the [U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida](/organizations/us-attorneys-office-for-the-southern-district-of-florida/) to respond by July 9. The government moved to file its response under seal, and its response, supported by a declaration of the line prosecutor, [A. Marie Villafaña](/people/ann-marie-villafana/), was the first reference the petitioners saw to the agreement. Marra denied the sealing motion after a hearing on July 11. On July 28 [Paul Cassell](/people/paul-cassell/), who had resigned as a federal judge in Utah the previous November, moved for a limited appearance for the petitioners, and on August 8 Jay Howell did the same. On August 21, 2008 Marra issued an order compelling production of the agreement under a protective order; on February 12, 2009 he denied the petitioners' motion to unseal it. Edwards litigated the case without fee for more than ten years.[^1][^2] With the petitioners pursuing civil claims against Epstein, the case was administratively closed on September 8, 2010, and reopened on October 28, 2010 after an order to show cause for lack of prosecution. In March 2011 the petitioners moved for a finding of violations, for an order that the office not withhold evidence, and to use the plea correspondence between prosecutors and defense counsel as proof. On April 7, 2011 Epstein's lawyers Roy Black, Martin Weinberg and [Jay Lefkowitz](/people/jay-lefkowitz/) moved to intervene in their own names; on May 3, 2011 the former prosecutor Bruce Reinhart moved to intervene and for sanctions; and on September 2, 2011 Epstein moved for limited intervention. On August 19, 2011 the government filed an opinion of the [Justice Department](/organizations/department-of-justice/)'s Office of Legal Counsel.[^2][^4] ### Rulings In 2011 Marra held that rights under the Act attach before the government files formal charges (Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337), and in 2013 that the Act authorizes the rescission of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of the conferral right (Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262). In December 2014 Edwards and Cassell moved to add a victim identified as Jane Doe 3, later publicly identified as [Virginia Giuffre](/people/virginia-giuffre/), alleging that Epstein had trafficked her to [Alan Dershowitz](/people/alan-dershowitz/) and others; Dershowitz denied it, and in April 2015 Marra struck the allegations as "immaterial and impertinent" without ruling on their truth. On February 10, 2016 the petitioners filed their consolidated statement of undisputed facts, with exhibits including the July 6, 2007 letter in which [Gerald Lefcourt](/people/gerald-lefcourt/) and Dershowitz cited the psychologist [Steven Pinker](/people/steven-pinker/).[^1][^5][^6] On February 21, 2019 Marra granted partial summary judgment (ECF No. 435, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201). He wrote that "[p]articularly problematic was the Government's decision to conceal the existence of the NPA and mislead the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility," that "[w]hile the Government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and implications of the NPA with Epstein's attorneys, scant information was shared with victims," and that "[t]he Court is not ruling that the decision not to prosecute was improper." The Justice Department then recused the Southern District of Florida and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to defend the case, and on February 6, 2019, after a December 2018 letter from Senator Ben Sasse, the [Office of Professional Responsibility](/organizations/office-of-professional-responsibility/) had opened its review of the agreement, which it then expanded to cover the conduct on which Marra's findings rested.[^1][^7][^8] Epstein was arrested in New York on July 6, 2019 and died in the [Metropolitan Correctional Center](/places/metropolitan-correctional-center-new-york/) on August 10. On September 16, 2019 Marra closed the case (ECF No. 478). He held the question whether the violation invalidated the agreement moot, denied rescission, sanctions, damages, a compelled meeting with former U.S. Attorney [Alexander Acosta](/people/alexander-acosta/) ("The Court has no jurisdiction over Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney, who is now a private citizen") and grand jury and internal documents, and refused attorney's fees because, "[a]lthough unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation." He wrote that "despite Petitioners having demonstrated the Government violated their rights under the CVRA, in the end they are not receiving much, if any, of the relief they sought," and that the rulings "likely played some role, however small it may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against Mr. Epstein in the [Southern District of New York](/organizations/us-attorneys-office-for-the-southern-district-of-new-york/) and that office's continuing investigation of others who may have been complicit with him."[^9][^10] ### In re Wild Wild petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for mandamus in her own name. The government argued in its brief that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case," while conceding at oral argument that the office had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed." A divided panel denied the petition on April 14, 2020, holding that the rights do not attach before charges, and the full court vacated that decision and granted rehearing en banc on August 7, 2020.[^8] On April 15, 2021 the en banc court (994 F.3d 1244) denied the petition. Judge Kevin Newsom, writing for Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Wilson, Lagoa, Brasher and Tjoflat, and in part Luck, wrote: "We have the profoundest sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein's hands, only to be left in the dark," and, "so it seems, affirmatively misled," by government attorneys: "Even so, we find ourselves constrained to deny Ms. Wild's petition." The Act permits a victim to move for relief within a preexisting proceeding, but "it does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action"; the majority stated that "we needn't decide whether, in the abstract, the rights to confer and to be treated with fairness might attach prior to the formal commencement of criminal proceedings." In a separate concurrence Newsom wrote that the prosecutors had, "by their own admission," affirmatively misled Wild and dozens of others: "Shameful all the way around. The whole thing makes me sick." Judge Elizabeth Branch, joined by Judges Martin, Jill Pryor and Hull, dissented, and Judge Frank Hull wrote separately: "Good gracious, there's nothing abstract about this case," and "[o]nce the ink was dry on the Agreement, the U.S. Attorney had exercised his discretion and made his charging decision."[^3][^11] The Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2022 (No. 21-351), the Solicitor General opposing review. Wild wrote after the denial: "The government intentionally misled the victims but found a way to get away with it by working with a child molester to get around the law. And the Judges ruled in their favor. How?" Representatives Jackie Speier, Scott Perry, Lois Frankel and Mo Brooks had introduced the Courtney Wild Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019 (H.R. 4729) to extend the conferral and notice rights to the pre-charge period; it was not enacted, nor were its successors in 2022 and later.[^3][^12] ### The Epstein Side On February 25, 2018, while the case was pending, Epstein wrote to [Kathryn Ruemmler](/people/kathryn-ruemmler/), the former [White House](/places/white-house/) Counsel, about a newly discovered "email trail" involving Scott Rothstein's prosecutors and lawyer: "now the issue is how to use, it, CVRA? marie? Bar. USA[?]. scoff rothsteins prosecutors that w[i]thdrew his r[ule] 35 [ ] filing. nurik, rothsteins lawyer on some of t[h]e emails. Judge marra, cvra.? press? move f[o]r sanctions? strategy time." Ruemmler replied at 2:12 a.m. on February 26: "How did you discover it? Let's discuss in the a.m."[^13] [^1]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019), ECF No. 435 (Marra, J.), reported at 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, at 2-3, 12-21, 26-33, citing *Does v. United States*, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011), and *Doe v. United States*, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2013). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.435.0.pdf [^2]: Docket, *Doe v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), ECF Nos. 1, 3, 11-14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 36, 38, 40, 44, CourtListener docket 4502088. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4502088/doe-v-united-states/ [^3]: *In re Wild*, No. 19-13843, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021) (en banc), opinion of Newsom, J., at 2-3, 13; Branch, J., dissenting; Hull, J., dissenting, at 156, 158. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.enb.pdf ; Supreme Court of the United States, docket No. 21-351, order of February 22, 2022 denying certiorari. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-351.html [^4]: Docket, *Doe v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), ECF Nos. 46-51, 55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 80, 83, 89, 90, 93, 94 (March to September 2011), CourtListener. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4502088/doe-v-united-states/ [^5]: "Lawyers Call Sexual Misconduct Case Against Dershowitz 'A Mistake,'" *The Harvard Crimson,* April 11, 2016. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/4/11/lawyers-drop-dershowitz-case/ [^6]: Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt and Alan M. Dershowitz to Jeffrey Sloman, Matthew Menchel, Andrew Lourie and A. Marie Villafaña, July 6, 2007, filed as Exhibit 46 to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Consolidated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 361-46 (entered February 10, 2016). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.361.46.pdf [^7]: Opinion and Order, *Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States*, ECF No. 435 (note 1), quoting ECF No. 407 at paragraphs 33, 37, 52, 61, 63, 83, 90; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, "Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein," November 2020. https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1336471/dl [^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Executive Summary of the November 2020 report, pp. v-vii. https://www.justice.gov/opr/page/file/1336471/dl ; the same report as filed in CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Aronberg: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02733081, Court Records (CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of the Palm Beach Post v. Aronberg, No. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. 2019)), appendix Exhibit 3. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/Court%20Records/CA%20Florida%20Holdings%2C%20LLC%2C%20Publisher%20of%20the%20Palm%20Beach%20Post%20v.%20Aronberg%2C%20No.%2050-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB%20(Fla.%2015th%20Cir.%20Ct.%202019)/EFTA02733081.pdf [^9]: Opinion and Order, *Doe v. United States*, No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2019), ECF No. 478 (Marra, J.). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80736/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-9_08-cv-80736-2.pdf [^10]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, *Investigation and Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Custody, Care, and Supervision of Jeffrey Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York,* Report 23-085, June 2023, pp. iii to iv. https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-085.pdf [^11]: *In re Wild*, No. 19-13843 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2021) (en banc), Newsom, J., concurring. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913843.enb.pdf [^12]: "Supreme Court Turns Away Jeffrey Epstein Victim's Petition on Dead Predator's Infamous Non-Prosecution Agreement," *Law & Crime,* February 22, 2022. https://lawandcrime.com/jeffrey-epstein-2/supreme-court-turns-away-jeffrey-epstein-victims-petition-on-dead-predators-infamous-non-prosecution-agreement/ ; H.R. 4729, 116th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4729/text ; H.R. 9444, 117th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9444 [^13]: U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Library, EFTA02522534, DataSet 11, email chain, Jeffrey Epstein and Kathy Ruemmler, "Re: this email trail was discovered today," February 25 to 26, 2018 (duplicate at EFTA02522094). https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02522534.pdf