Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every day we bring you insight an analysis into the most important legal news of the day. You can find more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Jeffrey Epstein will remain behind bars while he awaits trial on sex trafficking charges.
Manhattan Federal Judge Richard Berman said this morning that prosecutors had established that Epstein posed a flight risk, and that was at the heart of his decision not to grant him bail. Joining me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner McCarter and English Bob, Epstein asked to be allowed to await trial at his Manhattan mansion, with electronic monitoring and a private security team, and pledging his fortune of at least five hundred million dollars as collateral. It
was expected that he wouldn't get home detention. But explain why his case is different from say Bernie made Off or Dominique strauss Khan, who got to stay in what prosecutors referred to as a gilded cage. Well, it really is a decision that is up to the discretion of the judge. Tune. So different judges may view the same facts and circumstances differently, and some may allow a defendant
to remain in home confinement leading up to trial. But in this case, the facts here really checked off so many of the boxes that would give a judge concern about risk of flight and danger to the community that it was not a surprise that Judge Berman did not allow him out. The fact that he had so many assets at his disposal, cash and diamonds, he had houses
all over the country but also internationally. Uh, and I think the judge was concerned about the fact that there was a false passport in his possession in the safe when agents went in and rated his house. Those are the kinds of things that will give any judge pause before he would allow a defendant in a high profile case like this to remain out on bail and under those string in terms for home confinement. Also the danger
to alleged and potential victims. Two alleged victims testified during Monday's bail hearing pleading with the judge not to grant Epstein bail. That almost made it impossible, didn't it. For the judge to grant bail here. That absolutely was a major factor. While while prosecutors made the argument that Epstein was an extreme flight risk, and they said he posed an overwhelming risk of flight, it really seemed to be the danger to the community pronged that the judge looked
at that really swayed his decision. In fact, he testified the judge said today that it was at the heart of his decision and he heard, as you said, from those two alleged victims about the conduct that they alleged Mr Epstein was engaged in. And the judge also knew about, uh some evidence that Mr Epstein had wired threety dollars to two potential witnesses, which also raised the question of
potential witness tampering. So all of that I think weighed heavily on the judge on the danger to the community prong here and also played a significant role in his ultimate decision. So Epstein's lawyers can seek a review before the Federal Appeals Court in Manhattan. But is that really a waste of time and money? Not that Epstein cares
about the money aspect of it. Well, it's an important issue because obviously the defendant does not want to remain in jail leading up to his trial, and from the standpoint of the defense lawyers, it is much more difficult to prepare a client for trial when you have to go to jail every time to meet with him rather than to meet with him in his house or in your office. So it's likely they will take that shot. But on the other hand, this is a discretionary call.
It's something that is largely left to the judge at the trial level, so it's highly unlikely that the appeals will overturn Judge Burman's decision. Judge Berman isn't known to be a fan of home detention for rich defendants. In six there was a similar request for home detention for a rich defendant, and he said it was unreasonable because it helps to foster inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a very small cohort of criminal defendants who are
extremely wealthy. But wealthy defendants have advantages at every stage of a trial proceeding because they have so many resources, so should a judge treat them differently at the bail stage. Well, they are treated differently to the extent that one of the issues and bail is risk of flight, and one of the ways to rebut risk of flight is to post significant assets that will be seized by the government
if you don't show up a trial. So almost by definition, those with more assets to post have a better chance of getting out of jail, but you're getting out of
jail pre trial leading up to the actual trial. But as you pointed out, Tune, this particular judge see to be concerned about what appears to be a two tiered system of justice here because in that similar case you're referring to, the judge said, that's that it's fostered inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a very small group of defendants, those who could not only post significant assets, but also someone who could pay for twenty four hour security,
which really narrows that down to a very small group of defendants. Bob Judge Berman said that his opinion would be available fairly soon. It's going to be a thirty to thirty four page opinion. Is that a normal length or a usual length for a bail hearing. Well, it's a little more involved than the usual bail hearing. But there are a lot of issues here because there are a lot of facts that relate to the potential flight risk here has to do with all of his assets.
The judgment was apparently not particularly satisfied with the disclosure made by the defendant, so I think there was some concern that there may be other assets out there that weren't disclosed. There were significant amounts of cash, there were diamonds. There was the rate on his house which found uh a lewd photographs of would appear to be underage girls,
which also concerned the judge. So there's a lot of issues that I think the judge wants to be very careful to make sure that his written opinion addresses each and every one of those things, because he knows there's a possibility that the defendants will take this up on appeal, and he wants to create a very good record for the appeals court to take a look at this issue. Just about thirty seconds here. But is this a big
advantage for the prosecution. Absolutely. It would have been I think a major setback to allow this defendant to remain out on bail uh pending his trial only because the expectation was so high that the judge would not release him. So he would have given the prosecutors a shot at the very beginning of the trial that favored the defense, and that was not something that they wanted to start off with and what's going to be a very contentious
and expensive trial. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints. He's a partner McCarter in English. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I am June Grosso. This is Bloomberg