Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26294House OversightOther

Alan Dershowitz defends representing Mike Tyson amid campus backlash

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017330
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage only recounts public criticism and debate over Dershowitz's representation of Mike Tyson, without revealing new facts, financial transactions, or links to powerful officials. It offers lit Dershowitz faced letters and attacks for defending Tyson on appeal. Students threatened sexual harassment complaints over his classroom discussions. The controversy centers on the ethical debate of r

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

legal-ethicslegal-representation-controvermike-tysonpublic-backlashalan-dershowitzhouse-oversightcampus-protestsrape-law
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
4.2.12 WC: 191694 actions that fall into a gray area. Let me explain something: No means no. There is no gray area. But in many date rape situations, the alleged victim didn’t say no. Nor did she say yes. There are grey areas. I received countless letters, phone calls, and personal attacks denouncing me for agreeing to represent Tyson on his appeal. Here are some excerpts from the letters: It’s too bad that a punk like Tyson can afford to pay for the top legal representation... but since you had the right to refuse to represent him, I fault you! It saddens me that you yourself continue to worship at the altar of the great god of violence and fear of women. Mr. Tyson is a convicted rapist with obvious psychological problems who needs a psychiatrist not an attorney who will argue excuses for his behavior! If, through your efforts, Mike Tyson is not held accountable for his behavior, then you do a disservice to all women and we become victims of a pandemic legal system gone awry! Mike Tyson? He doesn’t deserve the best—it’s a shanda!! (“Shanda” is the Yiddish for “shame.”) When you choose to represent someone like Mike Tyson, you attach the Jewish community to your action...I now find it hard to understand how you can mount a passionate defense for a convicted rapist. Shame on you, Alan Dershowitz, if you handle this appeal. The most surprising response came from some Harvard Law School students, who should understand that our adversary system of justice requires that all convicted defendants be accorded a zealous appeal. I don’t know what actually took place in Mike Tyson’s hotel room on that fateful night, but it may well have fallen into the category of gray area. He believed that she wanted to sleep with him. She may have been ambivalent or sending mixed signals (though I doubt it). It was a close case and Tyson was entitled to have his defense presented vigorously, both at trial and on appeal. Yet several of my students strongly objected to their teacher representing “a convicted rapist.” A couple of them even threatened to file “sexual harassment” charged against me because my representation of Tyson created a “hostile environment” for students who believed he was guilty. The protest then broadened to the way I discussed the crime of rape in class. In my criminal law class, I teach the law of rape as an example of a cutting-edge subject that poses a sharp conflict between the rights of defendants and their accusers. As usual, I take a “devil’s advocate” position on politically correct issues. For example, although I personally oppose capital punishment, I 243

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated

Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.

1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01656173

20p
House OversightUnknown

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Allegations linking Alan Dershowitz, Virginia Roberts, and Jeffrey Epstein to alleged extortion and sexual abuse claims in a court filing

Allegations linking Alan Dershowitz, Virginia Roberts, and Jeffrey Epstein to alleged extortion and sexual abuse claims in a court filing The passage references high‑profile individuals (Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, a former federal judge) and claims of extortion, false accusations, and sexual abuse involving underage girls. While the text is fragmented and lacks concrete dates or transaction details, it suggests possible legal strategies and coordinated allegations that could merit further document review and witness interviews. The novelty is moderate because similar accusations have been reported, but the specific mention of a court filing and a “motion” provides a concrete lead for investigators. Key insights: Dershowitz alleges a plot to extort him involving false sexual abuse claims.; Virginia Roberts' allegations are tied to a declaration filed on Jan 15, 2015 against the government.; Reference to attempts to overturn Epstein’s non‑prosecution agreement.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.