The 2007 Epstein Plea Deal: How It Happened and Why It Matters

What Happened

In 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, led by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein's legal team, according to the agreement itself and reporting by the Miami Herald. The deal effectively ended the federal investigation in Florida and allowed Epstein to plead guilty to lesser state charges.

The Investigation That Preceded It

The Palm Beach Police Department opened an investigation into Epstein in March 2005 after a parent reported that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid for sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach residence, according to the police probable cause affidavit. The investigation identified dozens of alleged victims, according to the Miami Herald's "Perversion of Justice" investigation.

The FBI subsequently opened a federal investigation, which, according to FBI records obtained through FOIA, identified approximately 36 girls who had been victimized by Epstein.

Terms of the NPA

According to the agreement itself, the NPA included the following terms:

Epstein would plead guilty to two Florida state charges: solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of prostitution involving a minor
He would receive an 18-month sentence in the Palm Beach County Stockade
He would register as a sex offender
Federal charges would not be pursued
Blanket immunity was extended to unnamed "potential co-conspirators," effectively shielding anyone who may have participated in or facilitated Epstein's activities
The agreement was to be kept confidential from the victims

Epstein's Legal Team

According to court records and reporting by the Miami Herald, Epstein's defense team included several prominent attorneys:

Jay Lefkowitz (lead negotiator)
Alan Dershowitz (who has denied any wrongdoing)
Kenneth Starr (former independent counsel)
Gerald Lefcourt

The Sentence

Epstein pleaded guilty to the state charges in June 2008 and was sentenced to 18 months in the Palm Beach County Stockade, according to court records. He was granted a controversial work-release program that allowed him to leave the facility for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, according to the Miami Herald.

He served approximately 13 months before being released, according to jail records.

Why It Matters

The NPA has been described by legal experts and major outlets as one of the most controversial plea agreements in modern American legal history. Its significance includes:

Victim notification failure: The deal was negotiated and finalized without notifying the identified victims, which a federal judge later ruled violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), according to the ruling in Doe v. United States
Co-conspirator immunity: The blanket immunity for unnamed co-conspirators meant that individuals who may have participated in or enabled Epstein's crimes were shielded from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida
Disproportionate leniency: Despite evidence of dozens of minor victims, the state-level charges resulted in an 18-month county jail sentence with work release, according to court records
Political consequences: Alexander Acosta resigned as U.S. Secretary of Labor in July 2019 following renewed scrutiny of his role in the NPA, according to the New York Times

For background on how the DOJ later handled the case, see DOJ Epstein Files.

The Crime Victims' Rights Act Ruling

In February 2019, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the NPA violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to notify and consult with identified victims before finalizing the agreement, according to the court ruling. Key findings:

Federal prosecutors were legally required to confer with victims before entering the agreement
The decision to keep the NPA confidential was inconsistent with CVRA requirements
However, the judge did not void the agreement or order Epstein's re-prosecution

This ruling came months before Epstein was separately arrested on new federal charges by the SDNY in July 2019.

The DOJ Internal Review

The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the conduct of the attorneys who negotiated the NPA, according to the OPR report. The review concluded that:

The prosecutors exercised "poor judgment" in several aspects of the case
However, the OPR did not find that the attorneys committed professional misconduct
The review examined the decision-making process but did not recommend disciplinary action

What We Know

Based on the NPA text, court rulings, and verified reporting:

The NPA was negotiated between Acosta's office and Epstein's defense team over a period of months in 2007
The agreement was explicitly designed to be kept from victims
A federal judge ruled it violated the CVRA
The DOJ's own internal review found "poor judgment" but no misconduct
The work-release arrangement allowed Epstein significant freedom during his sentence
Acosta resigned from his cabinet position over the controversy in 2019

What We Don't Know

The full internal communications within the U.S. Attorney's Office about why such favorable terms were offered — these have not been fully disclosed
Whether political pressure or external influence played any role in the agreement's terms
The identities of the unnamed co-conspirators who received immunity
Why the OPR review reached a finding of "poor judgment" rather than misconduct, given the CVRA violation
Whether the NPA's immunity provisions have affected subsequent investigations

Primary Sources

Non-Prosecution Agreement text — Miami Herald archive
Miami Herald, "Perversion of Justice" — miamiherald.com
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility — justice.gov/opr
Crime Victims' Rights Act ruling — CourtListener
New York Times, Acosta resignation — nytimes.com
Associated Press, NPA reporting — apnews.com

For the full scope of Epstein case documents, see The Epstein Files. Learn about the Trump-Epstein connection including Acosta's role, or explore the case timeline. Browse all records in the document library.