HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016492.jpg

570, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240. Specifically, the “evidence . . . established that [Epstein] committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls,” who “were brought to [Epstein’s] home to provide ‘massages’ that led to very serious sex crimes.” Jd. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240. . Although the Manhattan District Attorney’s briefing remains under seal, the Decision indicates that “the People [took] a different position on appeal from the position they took before the hearing court.” Jd. at 571, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 241. This Court did not, however, unseal any of the appeal briefs or provide a detailed summary of the parties’ respective arguments. The public and the press are thus left in the dark as to what exactly the District Attorney’s Office and Epstein wrote in their respective appeal briefs. It appears that the District Attorney’s Office may have taken the position that ADA Gaffney had “mistakenly conceded [before the lower court] that the conduct for which defendant was not indicted should not be considered, and that defendant should be adjudicated a level one offender.” /d. at 572, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 241. The Decision also states that this Court rejected Epstein’s argument that the District Attorney “should be estopped” from changing position on appeal and also rejected Epstein’s “remaining claims” as being “improperly raised for the first time on appeal.” Jd. The public has the right to know more than these sketchy details, however, particularly when the arguments advanced by the parties on appeal clearly discuss the decision taken by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to abruptly change its earlier position that Epstein was deserving of lenient treatment. C. Media Interest in New York and Florida Prosecutors’ Lenient Handling of Epstein’s Case The handling of Epstein’s prosecution in Florida and the subsequent sex offender registration proceeding against in him New York have both been the subject of legitimate public interest and intense controversy. In the Florida proceedings, the prosecutors were criticized for allowing Epstein to enter into a seemingly favorable plea deal. For instance, as the Post reported 4811-3721-9459y.3 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016492