EFTA00181262¶
A53¶
Letter from Martin G. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders Regarding Risk Level and Designation Determination for Jeffrey Epstein, dated August 16, 2010¶
[pp. A53-A57]¶
A53¶
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C.¶
ATTORNEY AT LAW¶
20 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000¶
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116¶
EMAIL ADDRESSES:¶
August 16, 2010¶
New York State¶
Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders¶
4 Tower Place¶
Albany, New York 12203-3764¶
Re: Jeffrey Epstein NYSID # OS1909¶
Dear Sir or Madam:¶
This letter and the accompanying materials are submitted to the Board pursuant to its notice of August 2, 2010, concerning the risk level and designation determination to be made with respect to Jeffrey Epstein. Their purpose is to demonstrate to the Board that, based upon Mr. Epstein’s history and personal characteristics, the circumstances of the offense which triggered the registration requirement, his acceptance of responsibility, his successful completion of his sentence and subsequent supervision, and the extraordinary unlikelihood of his ever again reoffending, the appropriate risk level designation is level 1.¶
Overview¶
Mr. Epstein, who is presently 58 years old, is a successful and respected financial advisor who also founded and heads a philanthropic organization, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation, Inc. which funds medical, educational, and advanced scientific research. The offense which led to the requirement that he register as a sex offender in Florida, which in turn triggered this state’s reporting requirement, ended almost five years ago and involved an exchange of money and consensual conduct with a young woman who, for all but a few months of the prostitution offense charged, was over the age of 17. Notably, as addressed in greater detail, infra, the conduct which occurred after reached the age of 17 would not even have been a misdemeanor under the cognate New York statute at the time the offense was committed.¶
Mr. Epstein pled guilty to that offense in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, and has fully and sincerely accepted responsibility for his conduct. There have been no subsequent incidents of criminal misconduct of any description.¶
EFTA00181263¶
A55¶
Epstein poses no threat to either himself or the general community, and he requires no additional intervention or treatment for his no-risk/low-risk status to be maintained into the future.¶
Letter of Stephen R. Alexander, Psy. D., submitted herewith as Ex. B.¹¶
All of these circumstances – Mr. Epstein’s low-risk classification in Florida, the state where the offense was committed, the low-risk assessment inherent in the decisions of Florida authorities responsible for the protection of the community, who knew him first-hand, to admit him to work release during his period of incarceration and to permit him to travel outside of Florida during his period of community control supervision, Dr. Alexander’s well-supported judgment that Mr. Epstein presents little or no risk of reoffense, the fact that the offense ended almost five years ago, and there has been no subsequent criminal misconduct of any kind, and the fact that Mr. Epstein is a mature, responsible, professional adult who uses neither alcohol nor drugs all support the conclusion that the supervision which accompanies a level 1 designation will more than suffice to serve the purposes of SORA. That conclusion is supported by the calculation of Mr. Epstein’s risk assessment guidelines score.¶
The Conduct Underlying the Offense Triggering the Florida Registration Requirement Would For the Most Part Not Even Have Been a Registerable Offense in New York Had the Conduct Occurred in New York¶
The offense which required Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender in the state of Florida was a violation of Fla. Stat. §796.03, which criminalizes procuring a person under the age of 18 (the age of consent in Florida) for prostitution, specifically, here, one “ ” The nearest New York cognate among the registerable offenses listed in N.Y. Correction Law §168-a is N.Y. Penal Law §230.04 (patronizing a prostitute). The information to which Mr. Epstein pled guilty charged that the offense occurred between August 1, 2004, and October 9, 2005, see Information, Ex. C, that latter date being the day before ’ s 18th birthday: Thus, for almost all of the duration of the charged offense, was over the age of 17, and the wholly consensual conduct in exchange for money which occurred between the two would not even have been a registerable offense in New York. See §168-a(2)(a)(i)(§230.04 a registerable offense only if “person patronized” is in fact under 17 years old). Indeed, at the time of the offense at issue, the conduct which occurred after turned 17 years of age would not even have been a crime under that statute if the conduct had taken place in New York. $^2$ Mr. Epstein’s offense ranks among the least serious of those which trigger the requirement of SORA registration. The single Florida offense which required registration involved¶
1 Dr. Alexander’s CV is included in Ex. B.¶
$ ^{2} $ In 2007, §230.04 was amended to extend its coverage to prostitution offenses involving individuals of any age, not just those under the age of 17, as the statute was written when Mr. Epstein’s offense was committed in 2004-05. Under §230.04 as written in 2004-05, the offense, to the extent that was in the last three months of her 16th year, would only have been a misdemeanor had it been committed in New York.¶
3¶
EFTA00181264¶
A57¶
substantial time he has spent with Mr. Epstein, Dr. Alexander is able to state unequivocally that Mr. Epstein has learned his lesson, that he presents no threat to the community, and that there is negligible risk that he will ever reoffend. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein should be scored at zero for the Post-Offense Behavior factors (factors 12-13).¶
Release Environment¶
Factor 14 contemplates that the risk level assessment will be made, as required under New York law, prior to the offender’s release from incarceration. Here, as the preceding section shows, Mr. Epstein was released from jail more than a year ago and was subject to close supervision for a period of one year afterwards. During the same time, he continued to meet with Dr. Alexander. The score for factor 14 should, accordingly, be zero.¶
Mr. Epstein maintains a vacation residence in Manhattan, which he owns, as well as residences in Florida and the Virgin Islands. Mr. Epstein’s interactions in connection with both his employment and philanthropic work are with adult business professionals, scientists, and educators. There is nothing in either Mr. Epstein’s living or employment situations which could even remotely be considered “inappropriate.” The score on factor 15 too should be zero.¶
Overrides¶
None of the listed factors are of any relevance or applicability to Mr. Epstein’s risk level designation.¶
Conclusion¶
Based on all the relevant factors, Mr. Epstein should be classified as a level 1 sex offender. Even should the Board somehow conclude that Mr. Epstein’s risk assessment guidelines score exceeds 70, the circumstances addressed in this letter differentiate this case so markedly from the norm of level 2 sex offenders that the Board should recommend a level 1 classification, as it is empowered to do under the Sex Offender Guidelines. The ultimate issue is the risk that the offender will reoffend, and the information provided to the Board with this letter persuasively demonstrates that such a risk is virtually nonexistent in this case.¶
Very truly yours,¶
Martha S. McKenny¶
Martin G Weinberg¶
5¶
EFTA00181265¶
EFTA00181266¶
EFTA00181267¶
EFTA00181268¶