Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-31491House OversightOther

Manhattan DA office’s internal miscommunication on unsealing Epstein appellate briefs and suggestion to notify Florida prosecutors

The passage reveals a procedural dispute and a possible internal miscommunication within the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office regarding the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein December 21, 2018: New York Post filed motion to unseal Epstein appellate briefs with redacted victi DA office initially appeared to oppose the motion, then claimed no position after internal miscomm

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #016426
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals a procedural dispute and a possible internal miscommunication within the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office regarding the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein December 21, 2018: New York Post filed motion to unseal Epstein appellate briefs with redacted victi DA office initially appeared to oppose the motion, then claimed no position after internal miscomm

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinflorida-prosecutioninteragency-coordinationprocedural-disputedistrict-attorneycourt-filingslegal-exposurehouse-oversightprocedural-misconductunsealing-records

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
District Attorney. Mr. Weinberg told me that he was unable to take a position on the Post’s motion without first reviewing it and reserved the right to file an opposition, if necessary. 11. | On December 21, 2018, the Post filed a motion requesting an order unsealing the appellate briefs and directing the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to produce copies with the names of victims redacted (the “December 21 Motion”). 12. On or about December 28, 2018, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office filed an affirmation in response to the Post’s motion, signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo and dated December 28, 2018 (the “DA Affirmation”). A true and correct copy of the Affirmation is annexed hereto as Exhibit E. 13. On January 2, 2019, I spoke with Ms. Friedman Agnifilo to discuss the DA Affirmation. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo told me that there had been a miscommunication by Mr. Frost and that the District Attorney’s Office did oppose the December 21 Motion. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo also told me that, in the view of the District Attorney’s Office, the Post should give notice of their motion to unseal the appeal briefs to the prosecutors in Florida that handled the prosecution that led to Mr. Epstein’s conviction for solicitation of prostitution from a minor. The Post disagrees with that position but nevertheless decided to moot any procedural issues related to requirements to notify the Florida prosecutors. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo subsequently informed me that the agency in Florida responsible for Mr. Epstein’s prosecution was the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office. 14. On January 3, 2019, I received an email from Mr. Weinberg stating that “after consideration of your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain identities, we take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein.” A true and correct copy of that email is annexed hereto as Exhibit F. 4840-5788-8644v. 1 3930033-000039

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone1 3930033
Phone840-5788

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.