The Jeffrey Epstein grand jury records: What comes next?
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump on July 17 directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to
ask a federal judge to release transcripts of grand jury testimony related to the 2019 indictment of Jeffrey Epstein for sex trafficking.
On social media, he said that 'any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony'
relating to Epstein should be released , 'subject to Court approval.' On July 18, Ms Bondi followed through. In court filings, she asked federal judges to unseal grand jury transcripts from Epstein's case, and the prosecution of his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell as well.
The request falls short of demands by Mr Trump's critics to release all of the government's files on Epstein, who died in federal custody while awaiting trial.
Generally, grand jury evidence is narrowly tailored by prosecutors to fit the criminal charges they want to file. So even if judges agree to unseal the grand jury testimony, it is unlikely to offer anything approaching an exhaustive accounting of what FBI agents and prosecutors learned about Epstein's activities. And the requests by the Justice Department to release the material will now most likely be only the beginning of a complicated process of review, redaction and potential release of testimony. Here's how it might work.
What is a grand jury?
Grand juries are groups of citizens who hear evidence from prosecutors and witnesses in secret, and then decide whether to formally indict a person under investigation. Grand juries are used in both state and federal courts; they are typically convened to gather and weigh evidence before charges are filed in most felony cases.
Compared with a trial, the grand jury process is friendlier to prosecutors, as jurors do not hear from lawyers representing the accused. And the standard for indicting people for a criminal offense is lower than the one for finding them guilty at trial.
Why is grand jury material sealed?
Grand juries are intended to be a screening mechanism, one that serves as a check on prosecutors to make sure that the government has a solid case before it brings criminal charges against someone in open court. Their proceedings are kept secret to protect the reputations of the people under government investigation who may turn out to be innocent or who are never charged with a crime. Secrecy also makes it easier to obtain full and truthful testimony from witnesses.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Priority for singles, higher quota for second-timer families to kick in from HDB's July BTO exercise
Singapore Witness stand not arena for humiliation in sex offence cases, judge reminds lawyers
Asia Japan PM's future in doubt after election debacle
Business Bigger, quieter, greener: High-volume low-speed fans see rising demand in warming Singapore
Singapore New home owners in Singapore find kampung spirit on BTO Telegram groups
Singapore What would it take for S'pore to shed the dirty image of its blue recycling bins?
Business DBS hits record high above $47; CDL up after director Philip Yeo announces resignation
World Gaza civil defence says Israeli fire kills 93 aid seekers
Prosecutors, investigators and jurors are generally barred from revealing not only grand jury testimony, but also the very existence of a grand jury proceeding. Violators can be punished for contempt of court. The rules around witnesses are less strict. Grand jury investigations sometimes become known to the public when prosecutors issue subpoenas to witnesses for their testimony.
What are the rules that govern the unsealing of grand jury testimony?
The operating manual for grand jury secrecy is Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That rule details the process for filing a petition asking the court to unseal grand jury material, and a number of exceptions under which releasing it can be legally justified. Courts can unseal grand jury materials for national security reasons, to help a defendant dismiss a different grand jury's indictment or at the request of a foreign court for use in its own criminal investigation.
The unsealing of grand jury materials is not a rubber-stamp process. The Florida courts refused to unseal Epstein materials until the state Legislature intervened by passing a new law. And federal courts remain divided on whether judges have the inherent power to unseal grand jury materials, outside of the exceptions listed in Rule 6(e). In the Epstein case, Ms Bondi cited 'long-standing and legitimate' public interest in the matter, as well as case law supporting that such interest can sometimes outweigh 'the countervailing interests in privacy and secrecy.'
What grand juries have considered the Epstein case?
Courts have convened several grand juries that heard evidence relating to Epstein's alleged crimes. The first was a Florida state grand jury in Palm Beach County that indicted Epstein for felony solicitation of prostitution in 2006. Nearly 200 pages of evidence gathered by that grand jury was made public last year, after Florida passed a law known as the 'Epstein grand jury bill,' intended to remove legal obstacles to its release.
In July 2019, another grand jury, this one federal, indicted Epstein for sex trafficking in New York. Epstein died at the Metropolitan Correctional Center before a trial could be held; a Justice Department investigation found that he died by suicide.
Yet another grand jury that heard Epstein-related evidence indicted Maxwell in 2020. She was later found guilty of conspiring with Epstein to abuse young girls.
Ms Bondi's filings request the release of grand jury transcripts from Maxwell's case and Epstein's. In those filings, she said a similar motion would be filed in the Southern District of Florida, where prosecutors investigated Epstein before state charges were filed.
What would be the process for unsealing the Epstein grand jury material?
The Justice Department has taken the first step, by formally filing two petitions in the Southern District of New York, where Epstein and Maxwell were charged. In the Epstein case, the petition was submitted to Judge Richard M. Berman, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, and who was overseeing Epstein's case in the weeks before his death.
Mr Berman can now give the parties in the case the opportunity to be heard, and possibly other interested parties such as Epstein's victims and media organisations. If he then rules to unseal some grand jury material, it would be up to him to decide what documents to make public. In its filings, the Justice Department said it would redact 'victim-identifying information' as well as 'other personal identifying information' before release.
Would the release of the Epstein grand jury material answer the public's questions around the case?
Almost certainly not. The Epstein case has spawned countless conspiracy theories and a number of legitimate questions as well.
Typically, grand jury testimony is neither exhaustive nor fully granular in its detail. It would not include all of the investigative material the FBI seized during its investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, such as the trove of photos found inside a locked safe at his Manhattan town house after he was arrested.
Instead, it is intended to provide sufficient backup to convince jurors that there is probable cause that the person under investigation committed a crime. So the best preview of what the testimony might contain is the two indictments against Epstein and Maxwell.
Those indictments have a narrow focus around Epstein's paying underage girls to exploit them sexually, and Maxwell's role in facilitating and sometimes participating in the abuse. They do not address Epstein's finances or his extensive network of wealthy and prominent friends. NYTIMES

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Judge who drew calls for impeachment over DOGE ruling assigned to Maxwell transcript case
Find out what's new on ST website and app. Ghislaine Maxwell appears via video link during her arraignment hearing in Manhattan Federal Court, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S. July 14, 2020 in this courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg/File Photo NEW YORK - A federal judge who faced Republican demands for impeachment after blocking Elon Musk's government review team from accessing sensitive Treasury Department records will consider whether to release grand jury testimony from the criminal case of Jeffrey Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan was assigned to the case on Monday. Maxwell's trial judge, Alison Nathan, is now a federal appellate judge. The assignment came three days after the U.S. government sought to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein, the disgraced financier and sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in jail after being charged with sex trafficking. In a Friday court filing, the Department of Justice said the criminal cases against Epstein and Maxwell are a matter of public interest, justifying the release of associated grand jury transcripts. Backers of conspiracy theories about Epstein have urged President Donald Trump to release a broad array of investigative files related to Epstein, not just grand jury transcripts. Separately, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami was assigned on Monday to preside over Trump's $10-billion lawsuit accusing The Wall Street Journal of defaming him by claiming he created a lewd birthday greeting for Epstein in 2003. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal and is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, said it will defend against the lawsuit, and had "full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting." News Corp and Murdoch are also defendants. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Subsidies and grants for some 20,000 people miscalculated due to processing issue: MOH Asia At least 19 killed as Bangladesh air force plane crashes at college campus Singapore ST Explains: What does it mean for etomidate to be listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act? Business Why Singapore and its businesses stand to lose with US tariffs on the region Singapore NTU to have compulsory cadaver dissection classes for medical students from 2026 World US authorities probing passenger jet's close call with B-52 bomber over North Dakota Singapore Jail for man who conspired with another to bribe MOH agency employee with $18k Paris trip Singapore New research institute will grow S'pore's talent in nuclear energy, safety Engelmayer and Gayles were appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman, an appointee of Democratic President Bill Clinton, will oversee the government's request for transcripts in Epstein's criminal case. NEWEST TRUMP CASE FOR FLORIDA JUDGE Many Trump supporters view the judiciary as an impediment to the Republican president's policy and personal goals. Each case could take several months or longer to resolve, followed by possible appeals. Engelmayer, 64, came under fire and drew Musk's scorn in February after temporarily blocking Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury systems. Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican, said impeachment was justified because the judge played politics in his decision, "demonstrating clear bias and prejudice against the president and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him." Judicial impeachments are rare and normally reserved for serious misconduct, not disapproval of individual rulings. Any unsealed transcripts are likely to be redacted, reflecting privacy or security concerns. Gayles, 58, has been on the federal bench since 2014, after the U.S. Senate approved his nomination by a 98-0 vote. The Wall Street Journal case is at least the second Trump lawsuit he has overseen. Gayles presided in 2023 over Trump's $500-million lawsuit accusing former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen of breaching fiduciary duties by revealing confidences and spreading falsehoods in books, podcasts, and media appearances. Trump voluntarily dismissed that case after six months. The lawyer who filed that case also filed the Journal lawsuit. REUTERS

Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Harvard, Trump administration to face off in court over cancelled funding
A pedestrian passes the federal courthouse where Harvard University is urging a federal judge to order US President Donald Trump's administration to restore about US$2.5 billion (S$3.2 billion) in cancelled federal grants and cease efforts to cut off research funding, in Boston on July 21. BOSTON - Harvard University will urge a federal judge on July 21 to order US President Donald Trump's administration to restore about US$2.5 billion (S$3.2 billion) in cancelled federal grants and cease efforts to cut off research funding to the prestigious Ivy League school. The court hearing before US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston marks a crucial moment in the White House's escalating conflict with Harvard , which has been in the administration's crosshairs after it rejected a list of demands to make changes to its governance, hiring and admissions practices in April . The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university says hundreds of research projects including ones concerning cancer treatments, infectious diseases and Parkinson's disease will be in jeopardy unless the judge declares the grant cancellations unlawful. The country's oldest and richest university has become a central focus of the administration's broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at US universities, which Mr Trump says are gripped by anti-Semitic and "radical left" ideologies. "The Trump administration's proposition is simple and commonsense: Don't allow anti-Semitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students," said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields in a statement. Among the earliest actions the administration took against Harvard was the cancellation of hundreds of grants awarded to researchers on the grounds that the school failed to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students on its campus. The Trump administration has since sought to bar international students from attending the school ; threatened Harvard's accreditation status ; and opened the door to cutting off more funds by finding it violated federal civil rights law. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia At least 19 killed as Bangladesh air force plane crashes at college campus Singapore Subsidies and grants for some 20,000 people miscalculated due to processing issue: MOH Singapore ST Explains: What does it mean for etomidate to be listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act? Business Why Singapore and its businesses stand to lose with US tariffs on the region Singapore NTU introduces compulsory cadaver dissection classes for medical students from 2026 World US passenger jet has close call with B-52 bomber Singapore Jail for man who conspired with another to bribe MOH agency employee with $18k Paris trip Singapore New research institute will grow S'pore's talent in nuclear energy, safety As part of Mr Trump's spending and tax bill, the Republican-led Congress increased the federal excise tax on Harvard's income from its $53 billion endowment to 8 per cent from 1.4 per cent. Income from the endowment covers 40 per cent of Harvard's operating budget. Harvard President Alan Garber said last week that the various federal actions since Mr Trump returned to office in January could strip the school of nearly $1 billion annually, forcing it to lay off staff and freeze hiring. Harvard has said it has taken steps to ensure its campus is welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students, who it acknowledges experienced "vicious and reprehensible" treatment following the onset of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza in October 2023. But Mr Garber has said the administration's demands have gone far beyond addressing anti-Semitism and unlawfully seek to regulate the "intellectual conditions" on its campus by controlling who it hires and who it teaches. Those demands, which came in an April 11 letter from an administration task force, included calls for the private university to restructure its governance, alter its hiring and admissions practices to ensure an ideological balance of viewpoints and end certain academic programs. After Harvard rejected those demands, it said the administration began retaliating against it in violation of the free speech protections of the US Constitution's First Amendment by abruptly cutting funding the school says is vital to supporting scientific and medical research. Ms Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in a separate case has already barred the administration from halting its ability to host international students. Mr Trump has expressed optimism that Harvard will eventually settle with his administration. Fields on July 18 said a good deal was more than possible and that the administration is 'confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision'. In court, the administration has argued that Ms Burroughs lacks jurisdiction to hear the challenge and that the grant contracts made clear they could be cancelled if the funded projects do not carry out federal government policy objectives. REUTERS

Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Britain calls for 50-day drive to arm Ukraine
Find out what's new on ST website and app. British Defence Secretary John Healey told a meeting of 52 nations that the 50 days given to Russia to strike a peace deal with Ukraine was a moment of 'maximum opportunity' for Kyiv's allies. LONDON - The British government on July 21 called for a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine to take advantage of a recent ultimatum put to Russia by US President Donald Trump. Earlier this month, Mr Trump gave Russian President Vladimir Putin 50 days to strike a peace deal with Kyiv in the three-year war or face sanctions. UK Defence Secretary John Healey told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) that Kyiv's backers stand at a moment of 'maximum opportunity'. 'As members of this UDCG, we need to step up, in turn, a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table,' Mr Healey told the virtual meeting of 52 nations. Mr Trump also pledged to supply Kyiv with new military aid, sponsored by Nato allies, as its cities suffer ever-increasing Russian aerial attacks since Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Mr Healey, chairing the meeting alongside German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, said the UK 'backs this policy'. 'We will play our full part in its success,' he added. Russia has escalated long-range aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities as well as front-line assaults and shelling over recent months, defying Mr Trump's warning. Mr Healey said Britain and Germany have 'agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine'. Mr Pistorius said the two countries would provide 220,000 rounds of 35 millimetre ammunition for anti-aircraft guns used by Ukraine. According to the UK defence ministry, Britain has sent £150 million (S$260 million) worth of air defence missiles and artillery rounds to Ukraine in the past two months. The UK has pledged to spend £700 million on air defence and artillery ammunition for Ukraine this year. The commitment is in addition to other funding to provide more of the drones that have become key weapons in the war with Russia. Some 50,000 drones have been delivered to Ukraine in the last six months, with another 20,000 coming from a coalition of nations led by Britain and Latvia. AFP