Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion regarding the request to unseal the grand jury transcripts from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s cases in the Southern District of New York.
On July 17th, President Trump posted to Truth Social that he called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce “any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.” Bondi filed motions in both the case in Florida from 2008, which has already been denied, followed by the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for both the Epstein case (2019) and the Maxwell case (2021).
Grand jury transcripts are usually held in the utmost confidence, however, in 1997, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court in the SDNY decision denying the unsealing of the grand jury information. The Second Circuit held that “there are certain ‘special circumstances’ in which release of grand jury records is appropriate even outside the boundaries of the rule.”
In the Second Circuit’s ruling, it enumerated a list of “non-exhaustive factors for trial courts to consider when deciding such motions”:
(i) the identity of the party seeking disclosure; (ii) whether the defendant to the grand jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure; (iii) why disclosure is being sought in the particular case; (iv) what specific information is being sought for disclosure; (v) how long ago the grand jury proceedings took place; (vi) the current status of the principals of the grand jury proceedings and that of their families; (vii) the extent to which the desired material— either permissibly or impermissibly—has been previously made public; (viii) whether witnesses to the grand jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and (ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the particular case in question.
In the memorandum filed, the DOJ was asked to “address with specificity these and other factors that the Government views as germane to its application.” The Court also asked whether “before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts” and whether they provided notice to the victims.
The Court also asked the DOJ to submit indices of the grand jury material, two complete sets of both the Maxwell and Epstein grand jury transcripts (redacted and unredacted versions), and a description of the grand jury materials, including exhibits.
In regard to addressing the Second Circuit’s factors laid out in the In re Craig case, the DOJ argued that “the Government is seeking disclosure of grand jury transcripts, a request that is consistent with increasing calls for additional disclosures in this matter.” The DOJ holds that the “need for secrecy is not especially strong” and that the request is not determinative regarding the decision.
The next factor is whether the Defendant is opposed to the disclosure. Jeffrey Epstein is reportedly deceased, however, the filing indicates that Maxwell is expected to “craft a response and set out [her] position to the Court.”
The third factor outlined pertains to the reasoning for disclosure in this case. The DOJ argues that in In re Craig, the Second Circuit held that “it is…entirely conceivable that in some situations historical or public interest alone could justify the release of grand jury information” and that there is a clearly expressed interest from the public in these crimes and the investigative work done by the DOJ and the FBI in those crimes.
They also note that there is a “recently intensified” interest since the publication of a July 6, 2025 Memorandum that announced the FBI and DOJ had concluded their systematic review of the investigations.
The fourth factor asked what the DOJ was seeking to be disclosed, which was noted as the “public disclosure of grand jury transcripts in the Epstein and Maxwell cases” with the appropriate redactions of victim-related and personal identifying information.
In the fifth factor, the DOJ notes that the “passage of time has not dulled the public’s interest in these cases” and highlighted that this serves as an important indication that the public’s interest is substantial.
The sixth factor took into account the death of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and his immediate family.
The seventh factor outlined information that had previously been made public. While the DOJ notes that none of the relevant transcripts have been “impermissibly leaked” to the public, there has been some testimony that was made public in civil litigations. The DOJ provided, under seal, a list of those witnesses whose accounts were conveyed in the grand jury, as well as which witnesses testified at trial.
In the section for the eighth factor, the DOJ addresses witnesses that may still be alive and affected by disclosure. They mention that in the Epstein case, there was a single witness – an FBI agent. In the Maxwell case, that same FBI agent testified, as well as a detective with NYPD who worked on the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.
Lastly, the ninth factor addresses secrecy, which the DOJ confirms that it intends to maintain secrecy through redactions of the victims and other personal identifying information.
The DOJ acknowledged that they have provided notice to “all but one” of the victims referenced in the grand jury transcripts. Attempts to contact the remaining victim have been unsuccessful. Currently, the DOJ is providing notice to other individuals identified in the transcripts.
You can read the Memorandum in Response to the Court here.
Among the cases cited by the DOJ in their motion to unseal were In re Petition of Nat. Sec. Archive (SDNY 2015) and In re Craig (2d Cir. 1997).
In the Craig decision, Bruce Craig, a doctoral candidate at the American University, was writing his dissertation on Harry Dexter White. White was accused of being a communist spy when he appeared before a grand jury in 1948. White emphatically denounced the allegations in front of the Un-American Activities Committee, however, he died days later.
For his dissertation, Craig sought publicly available sources on the allegations raised against White, but claimed that the only document that might reveal White’s perspective on the charges would be the grand jury testimony. Craig argued that “given the historical impact on domestic politics in the 1950s…, such release is strongly in the public’s interest.”
The Second Circuit in its decision stated:
Craig argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a requirement of “extraordinary circumstances,” and should have considered only whether the public (and his) interest in the grand jury records outweighs the reasons for maintaining the rule of grand jury secrecy. The government, instead, devotes much of its response to asserting that the district court had no authority even to consider departing from the confines of Rule 6(e).
The government in that case, however, argued “that ‘mere historical interest’ should never be sufficient to permit the disclosure of grand jury transcripts.”
In the motion filed in the Epstein and Maxwell cases, the government is not objecting, but rather is the petitioner itself. The Second Circuit in Craig opined that, “Our decision [to affirm release of grand jury minutes beyond Rule 6] should therefore not be taken as demanding, or even authorizing, public disclosure of witness’ grand jury testimony in every case where he seeks this and the Government consents. It rests on the exercise of a sound discretion under the special circumstances in [each] case.”
Considering there is widespread bipartisan support for the release of these transcripts, that the Government in this case is the petitioner, and that one of the Defendants is deceased while the other is anticipated to file a response, this case is likely above the threshold of the exception granted for a single individual writing a dissertation.
In the case of re Petition of Nat. Sec. Archives, the Court was presented with a case of two spies who were convicted of selling U.S. nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Both were convicted and put to death.
Reader’s Digest called it “The Crime of the Century” in 1959, which was used to bolster its historical significance. One of the convicted, Ethel Rosenberg, however, was widely believed to be innocent of the charge and unanswered questions piqued the public’s interest.
David Greenglass testified during that grand jury and it was believed his testimony is what led to the conviction of Ethel Rosenberg. However, it was later revealed that Greenglass may have been protecting his wife, who was believed to have typed up the notes for Julius Rosenberg.
Greenglass objected to the release of his grand jury testimony during his lifetime, despite the public interest in the case. However, following his death and despite the interest of his family, the unsealing of his testimony was ordered.
Given the widespread bipartisan consensus to unseal the transcripts paired with Defendant’s death in a Manhattan prison, hopefully the Court finds sufficient public interest to unseal these transcripts.
As of publication, no appeal has been filed in the Southern District of Florida denial. As of writing, no one, including Democrats demanding the release of the Epstein files, has filed an amicus brief in support of the release.
The post DOJ Files Memorandum in Case to Unseal Epstein and Maxwell Grand Jury Testimony and a Look Into the Cases Cited to Justify Their Release appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
