EFTA00723408

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
MEMORANDUM 
CONFIDENTIAL 
TO: 
ADA Lisa Friel, Chief, Sex Crimes Unit 
ADA Jennifer Gaffney, Deputy Chief, Sex Crimes Unit 
ADA Patrick Egan, Sex Crimes Bureau and Trial Bureau 40 
FROM 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Matthew Solum 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
DATE 
October 5, 2010 
SUBJECT: 
SORA Determination for Jeffrey E. Epstein, NYSID # OSI909, 
Supreme Court Case # 30129-2010 
New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et aL is 
intended to impose the most stringent reporting requirements on those sex offenders most likely 
to reoffend and cause the most grave harm to society, while imposing less restrictive (but still 
substantial) reporting obligations on those persons convicted of a qualifying sex offense who 
pose less danger to the People of the State of New York. Those offenders deemed most likely to 
reoffend, as well as "sexually violent offenders," "predicate sex offenders," and "sexual 
predators," are generally categorized as Level 3 and are accordingly subjected to a lifetime of 
frequent and invasive reporting and public dissemination rules. From there, the scale slides 
down to those who pose a "moderate," but perhaps less grave, risk of reoffending at Level 2, 
where offenders remain subject to public dissemination of personal information and a just 
slightly less rigorous lifetime of registration with law enforcement officials. Finally, those 
offenders whose transgressions, though serious, are less profound and who are deemed to pose a 
lower likelihood of reoffense are subject under SORA to the still rigid, though slightly less 
intrusive, reporting requirements of Level I. 
Jeffrey Epstein, a 57-year old financial advisor and philanthropist who is required to 
register by virtue of a single conviction for a prostitution-related offense, who maintains his 
primary residence in Florida but owns a vacation home in Manhattan, and who has never before 
been convicted of a crime, clearly belongs in this latter category. Given 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 a jail sentence and 
subsequent supervision in Florida, and the extraordinary improbability that he will ever re-offend 
in any state, much less New York, Mr. Epstein's categorization under SORA should be properly 
adjudged as Level 1. 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723408

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
I. 
SORA Is Designed to Impose the Most Stringent Reporting Requirements Upon 
Those Posing the Greatest and Most Likely Threat to the Public 
SORA is not intended to be punitive, but rather, is a protective mechanism designed to 
shield the public by imposing the heaviest reporting burdens on those individuals most likely to 
reoffend and cause grave harm if they do reoffend. Accordingly, the three levels of reporting --
which dictate the depth and frequency of an individual's reporting to law enforcement and the 
degree to which such information may be disseminated to the public -- are based upon an 
assessment of the offender's "danger to the community": Level 1 (risk of repeat offense is low), 
Level 2 (risk of repeat offense is moderate), and Level 3 (risk of repeat offense is high). See 
Correction Law §168-k(2), §168-1(1), (2), (3). 
In crafting SORA, the Board clearly contemplated that offenders should be categorized 
based on consideration of two separate, forward-looking factors: "risk of a repeat offense" and 
"threat posed to the public safety." Correction Law § 168-1(5) (emphasis added). Indeed, the 
Commentary to SORA's Risk Assessment Guidelines states this principle explicitly and provides 
helpful amplification: 
As the Act makes clear, the threat posed by a sex offender depends 
upon two factors: (i) the offender's likelihood of reoffense and (ii) 
the harm that would be inflicted if he did reoffend. Some 
offenders repeatedly reoffend, but the harm they inflict, which not 
insubstantial, is less grave. Others may pose a lesser likelihood of 
recidivism, especially if properly supervised, but the harm would 
be great if they were to reoffend. The sex offender whose modus 
operandi is to rub himself against women in a crowded subway car 
generally falls into the former category; the child molester into the 
latter. The guidelines seek to capture both these elements -- the 
probability of reoffense and the harm therefrom -- in determining 
an offender's risk level. It is important to note that the risk level 
seeks to capture not only an offender's risk of reoffense but also 
the harm posed by a particular offender should he reoffend. 
Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary 
(2006) at 2, ¶ 1. Reading between the lines, the Commentary makes clear that the SORA 
Guidelines are intended to differentiate between relative risks posed by those who have 
committed qualifying sexual offenses; designating a person as a Level 1 is not tantamount to 
condoning that person's past misconduct, but merely is a recognition that the person poses a low 
risk of committing future crimes, and any transgressions that such person might commit in the 
future, however improbable, are unlikely to cause the same grave societal harm as, for example, 
a sexually violent offender or abuser of young children. 
2 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723409

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
In short, the Guidelines make clear that where a person's misconduct falls toward the less 
egregious side of the sexual offense spectrum and where the person poses a low risk of reoffense, 
the proper SORA adjudication is Level 1. As set forth further below, that is precisely where 
Jeffrey Epstein belongs. 
Il. 
Jeffrey Epstein Poses Little to No Threat of Reoffending or Causing Harm to the 
Public Safety of the People of the State of New York 
A. 
Degree of Harm to Society 
Without minimizing the seriousness of the offenses to which Jeffrey Epstein pleaded 
guilty in Florida, it must be noted that Mr. Epstein's crimes did not inflict any actual harm on his 
"victims," and when considering the range of reportable sex offenses under SORA, imposed 
relatively minimal harm on society at large. 
The offense for which Mr. Epstein is required to register under SORA -- a June 30, 2008 
plea in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida under an Information to the charge of 
Procuring a Person Under 18 for Prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 796.03' -- did not 
involve assault, force, or violence of any sort. Rather, the conviction stemmed from consensual 
conduct that ended nearly five years ago, when Mr. Epstein received massages and engaged in 
sexual touching in exchange for money with a young woman ("AD") who was over age 17 for 
all but two of the fourteen months during which the acts of prostitution occurred. Mr. Epstein 
did not engage in sexual intercourse with the woman while she was under 17, nor did he ever 
force himself or any particular contact or activity upon AD. At no time (whether before or 
during their interactions) did Epstein exercise any supervisory or other position of authority over 
her, nor did she suffer from any mental disability, incapacity, or physical helplessness. Instead, 
AD voluntarily came to visit Mr. Epstein at his Florida home on various occasions on her own 
accord for the purpose of participating in what she apparently viewed as a lucrative business 
transaction. Indeed, in addition to engaging in sexual conduct for money, in her statement to 
police, AD acknowledged her own complicity in promoting prostitution by encouraging others to 
engage in prostitution so that she could also earn finder's fees for herself.2
Jeffrey Epstein's offense ranks among the least serious of those triggering SORA 
registration under New York law. Indeed, Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to patronizing AD for 
prostitution from August I, 2004 and October 9, 2005 (the day before AD's 18th birthday), and 
for one year of those fourteen months, AD was a consenting adult under New York law. See 
P.L. § 130.05(3)(a). Thus, the vast majority of conduct which constituted the offense for which 
Mr. Epstein was convicted in Florida would not have triggered any SORA registration 
I Jeffrey Epstein concurrently pleaded guilty to an Indictment charging him with one count of Felony Solicitation for 
Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.07(2)(f), (4)(c). This charge does not involve any allegations of sexual contact with 
underage women and is not a registerable offense under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. § 943.0435. 
2 Based on her own account, AD engaged in this prostitution recruitment activity when she was 17, beyond the age 
of consent under New York law. 
3 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723410

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
requirement if committed in New York under the law in effect at 2004 and 2005 (the period of 
the conduct at issue),3 and even today, is only registerable where the woman patronized for 
prostitution is under age seventeen. See Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i) (stating that § 230.04 is 
a registerable offense "where the person patronized is in fact less than seventeen years of age"). 
Given all of these considerations, Mr. Epstein's behavior, while certainly wrong and 
obviously criminal under both the laws of New York and Florida, just barely falls within the 
range of conduct viewed as sufficiently harmful to trigger SORA registration requirements. 
B. 
Risk of Reoffense 
With respect to the second factor in a SORA assessment, Jeffrey Epstein presents little to 
no risk of committing further sexual offenses. Indeed, the reasoned opinion of a psychological 
expert who has worked with Mr. Epstein, the permissiveness shown by law enforcement 
agencies supervising him, and the relative leniency demonstrated by other jurisdictions 
exercising authority over him since his conviction all support the conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein 
has demonstrated himself to be a person worthy of trust and presenting little to no threat of 
reoffense. 
First, the decisions made by numerous law enforcement agencies in Florida, where 
Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of the instant offense, served his sentence, and currently spends 
most of his time, as well as the outcomes of those decisions, are instructive and lend strong 
support to the notion that Jeffrey Epstein poses little risk of reoffense. First, the Palm Beach 
County Sheriff's Office, which had custody of Mr. Epstein during his year of incarceration, 
approved Mr. Epstein for that office's work release program and permitted him to leave the jail 
and report to work on a daily basis from October 2008 until his release in July 2009. See Letter 
of Deputy K. Smith of August 12, 2010 (Exhibit A). While serving his year of probation, both 
the Circuit Court in Palm Beach and Mr. Epstein's assigned probation officer regularly granted 
Mr. Epstein's requests for permission to travel briefly outside Florida for business purposes. 
See, e.g., Order of Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County of 
December 18, 2009 (Exhibit B) (allowing Epstein to travel overnight on weekdays for business 
pending 48-hour notice and approval of his probation officer). Mr. Epstein successfully 
complied with the all of the restrictions imposed on him and completed his incarceration and 
probation without incident. 
Perhaps more significantly, Florida -- the state where Jeffrey Epstein was actually 
convicted of the prostitution offense that obligated him to register as a sex offender under Florida 
law and where Mr. Epstein spends the bulk of his time -- designated Mr. Epstein as the lower of 
two levels of sex offender under that state's sex offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. 
Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit 
3 The nearest cognate crime under New York law in 2005 was Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, P.L. 
230.04, a misdemeanor, which only criminalized prostitution between a "john" over twenty-one years of age and a 
prostitute less than seventeen years of age." 
4 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723411

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
C); see also Fla. Stat. § 775.21 (Florida sexual predator statute), § 943.0435 (Florida sexual 
offender statute). Even more tellingly, Florida then imposed upon Mr. Epstein the most minimal 
of reporting requirements under that sex offender designation, requiring him to report to Florida 
authorities only two times per year. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State 
Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C). 
Similarly, New Mexico (another state where Mr. Epstein owns a residence) has 
determined that it will not require Mr. Epstein to register at all under its sexual offender 
reporting statute, notwithstanding his Florida conviction and the conduct alleged in connection 
therewith. See Letter of Peter Schoenburg to Martin G. Weinberg, August 18, 2010 (Exhibit D); 
see also NMSA 1978, § 29-11A-3(E). [Do we have the letter from Ms. Chacon in NM 
Department of Public Safety?] [Is Epstein required to register in US Virgin Islands? What 
is the status of that'l] 
This confidence in Jeffrey Epstein's ability and desire to lead a law abiding life is further 
echoed in the words of the clinical psychologist who has worked with Mr. Epstein following his 
arrest/conviction for the instant offense [when did JE begin with therapy?]. That doctor, 
Stephen R. Alexander, Psy.D., has praised Mr. Epstein's cooperativeness, self-reflection, and 
receptiveness to treatment throughout their sessions. Drawing from his observation and 
interaction with Mr. Epstein in therapy, as well as his own considerable experience as a forensic 
psychologist, Dr. Alexander opined: 
Relying upon my 25 years of experience as a forensic psychologist 
and the plethora of data gathered by me, I state with confidence 
that Mr. Epstein poses no threat to himself or the community. It is 
abundantly clear that he has learned his lesson and the probability 
of his reoffending is negligible. Mr. 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. to Jack Goldberger, Esq., August 16, 2010 (Exhibit E). 
Thus far, this has proven to be correct, as there have been no instances of criminal or sexual 
misconduct of any type since Mr. Epstein's plea to the instant offenses in 2008. 
Finally, Mr. Epstein has a remarkable personal history which further compels the 
conclusion that he is unlikely to ever violate the law again. Discovering a love of math and 
science as a young man, he worked his way up from being a college drop-out from a middle-
class Brooklyn neighborhood to become a highly successful financial advisor, as well as founder 
and patron of the C.O.U.Q Foundation Inc., a charitable organization which funds medical, 
educational, and advanced scientific research at top university and academies around the world. 
For well over 50 years, Mr. Epstein has lived, and will continue to live, as a productive, 
philanthropic, and law-abiding member of society, not a recidivist criminal. Indeed, Mr. 
Epstein's guilty pleas to the instant offenses in 2008, when he was 55 years old, mark the first 
5 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723412

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
and only criminal convictions of Mr. Epstein's life. Mr. Epstein's willingness to acknowledge 
his guilt and agree to leave the comforts of his home to serve a year behind bars, followed by a 
year of probationary supervision, is a testament to both his acceptance of responsibility for his 
crimes and his motivation to learn from his mistakes. While he admittedly lost his way, the 
harsh lessons of the past few years have, as observed by Dr. Alexander, have helped Jeffrey 
Epstein refocus and recommit to directing his personal energies to productive experiences to the 
fullest extent possible. Mr. Epstein is not in any way a typical sex offender, and these personal 
strengths and attributes distinguish him as someone who is extremely unlikely ever to commit 
another sexual offense. 
III. 
Under the SORA Risk Assessment Instrument, Jeffrey Epstein Should Be 
Adjudicated a Level 1 Offender. 
A. 
Based on the Relevant Facts Supported by Clear and Convincing Evidence, 
Jeffrey Epstein Falls Squarely within Level 1 
As set forth in the completed SORA Risk Assessment Instrument on the following two 
pages, a proper calculation of Jeffrey Epstein's risk assessment under SORA, based upon the 
credible evidence of registerable activity that can foreseeably be proven by clear and convincing 
evidence' and the offenses for which Mr. Epstein was convicted, places Mr. Epstein squarely 
within the category of Level 1. This is a proper evaluation of the actual risk of reoffense and 
threat to society posed by Mr. Epstein. And not surprisingly, it is entirely in line with the 
evaluations of the other jurisdictions that have already considered Mr. Epstein's risk level under 
their own sex offender reporting schemes. 
For each of the calculations in the following table, a brief explanation of the scoring is 
provided, making reference in Section I, Current Offense, to the relevant aspects of the offenses 
included within the instant disposition. Because Mr. Epstein has no prior criminal convictions or 
acts of sexual misconduct, and does not use (much less abuse) drugs or alcohol, he scores zero 
with respect to Section II, Criminal History. Similarly, given his acceptance of responsibility for 
his crimes, his successful completion of incarceration without incident and full compliance with 
the terms of probation without incident, and satisfactory participation with post-sentencing 
treatment, Mr. Epstein also scores zero for Section III, Post-Offense Behavior. Finally, Mr. 
Epstein scores zero for Section IV, Release Environment, as he is gainfully employed and lives 
and works in appropriate environments that do not provide him with inappropriate access to 
minors, as ordered by the Court. None of the overrides set forth in SORA apply to Jeffrey 
Epstein. 
1Of course, the assessment in the attached table reflects counsel's best preliminary judgment at this time, but in no 
way should be deemed a concession as to certain facts and SORA calculations or a waiver of any arguments that 
may be made to challenge a risk assessment, as counsel deems appropriate. 
6 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723413

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
SORA Risk Assessment Instrument for Jeffrey Epstein 
RISK FACTOR 
VALUE 
SCORE 
EXPLANATION 
I. CURRENT OFFENSE(S) 
1. Use of Violence 
0 
There were no credible allegations of forcible 
compulsion, physical injury, or dangerous 
weapon made against Epstein under either of 
the Florida charges for which Epstein was 
convicted. 
Used forcible compulsion 
+10 
Inflicted physical injury 
+15 
Armed with dangerous 
instrument 
+30 
2. Sexual Contact with Victim 
10 
Epstein scores 10 points for allegations that 
he touched the body of AD during a massage 
while she was still 16. There is no sexual 
intercourse, criminal sexual act ("deviate 
sexual intercourse") or aggravated sexual 
abuse alleged against Epstein under either of 
the Florida charges for which Epstein was 
convicted. 
Contact over clothing 
+5 
Contact under clothing 
+10 
X 
Sexual intercourse, criminal 
sexual act ("deviate 
sexual intercourse") or 
aggravated sexual abuse 
+25 
3. Number of Victims 
0 
There is only one victim (i.e. woman under 
the age of 17) alleged in connection with the 
reportable crime for which Epstein was 
convicted. 
Two 
—20 
Three or more 
+30 
4. Duration of Offense Conduct 
with Victim 
0 
There is no credible evidence that Epstein 
engaged in three or more acts of sexual 
contact with AD over a period of at least two 
weeks during the time when she was under 
17. See Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk 
Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, 
Comment 
2006 at 10, "Factor 4." 
Continuing course of sexual 
misconduct 
—20 
5. Age of Victim 
20 
Epstein scores 20 points for allegations that 
he procured the prostitution services of AD 
when she was less than 17.
11 through 16 
+20 
X 
10 or less, 63 or more 
+30 
6. Other Victim Characteristics 
0 
There is no evidence that any of the women 
whom Epstein procured for prostitution 
suffered from any mental disability, 
incapacity, or physical helplessness. 
Victim suffered from mental 
disability or incapacity or from 
physical helplessness 
+20 
7. Relationship with Victim 
20 
Epstein scores 20 points for allegations that 
he did not know AD prior to procuring 
prostitution services from her when she was 
less than 17. 
Stranger or established for 
purpose of victimizing or 
. rofessional relationshi . 
+20 
X 
II. CRIMINAL HISTORY 
8. Age at First Act of Sexual 
Misconduct 
0 
Not applicable. 
20 or less 
+10 
9. Number and Nature of Prior 
Crimes 
Not applicable. There is no credible 
evidence that Epstein has ever been 
7 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723414

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Prior history/no sex crimes or 
felonies 
+5 
0 
convicted of a crime. 
Prior history/non-violent felony 
+15 
Prior violent felony or 
misdemeanor sex crime or 
endangering welfare of a child 
+30 
10. Recency of Prior Offense 
0 
Not applicable. 
Less than 3 years 
—10 
11. Drug or Alcohol Abuse 
0 
Not applicable. Epstein does not drink 
alcohol or use drugs. 
History of Abuse 
+15 
COLUMNS 1-11 SUBTOTAL 
50 
III. POST-OFFENSE BEHAVIOR 
12. Acceptance of Responsibility 
0 
Epstein has fully accepted responsibility for 
his conduct. 
Not accepted responsibility 
—10 
Not accepted responsibility / 
refused or expelled from 
treatment 
—15 
13. Conduct While Confined / 
Supervised 
0 
Epstein successfully completed his one-year 
period of incarceration and one-year period 
of probation. 
Unsatisfactory 
+10 
Unsatisfactory with sexual 
misconduct 
+20 
IV. RELEASE ENVIRONMENT 
14. Supervision 
0 
Epstein was released from jail with 
appropriate supervision and participated in 
therapy with a clinical psychologist. 
Release with specialized 
supervision 
0 
Release with supervision 
+5 
Release without supervision 
+15 
15. Living / Employment Situation 
0 
Epstein's living and employment situations 
are appropriate, as he does not live or work 
with or around minors. 
Living or employment 
inappropriate 
+10 
COLUMNS 12-15 SUBTOTAL 
0 
COLUMNS 1-11 SUBTOTAL 
50 
TOTAL RISK FACTOR SCORE 
(add 2 subtotals) 
50 
i 
2 
3 
Level I (low) 
= 
0 
to 
+70 
Level 2 (moderate) 
= 
+75 
to 
+105 
Level 3 (high) 
= 
+110 
to 
+300 
8 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723415

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
Of course, it bears noting that even should an alternative risk calculation be made under 
the factors set forth by the SORA risk assessment instrument, resulting in a total above the Level 
1 ceiling of 70 points, the SORA statute and Guidelines grant discretion to depart from the 
calculation. In other words, regardless of the actual numerical calculation, the District Attorney 
may ask the Court to exercise its discretion and appropriately designate Mr. Epstein a Level 1 
offender to reflect the negligible risk of future harm that he poses to the community. As noted in 
the Commentary to the Risk Assessment Guidelines: 
The ability to depart is premised on a recognition that an objective 
instrument, no matter how well designed, will not fully capture the 
nuances of every case. Not to allow for departures would, 
therefore deprive the Board or a court of the ability to exercise 
sound judgment and to apply its expertise to the offender. 
Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary 
(2006) at 4, ¶ 5; see also People v. Ferrer, 69 A.D.3d 513, 
(1st Dept. 2010) (observing "the 
risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a 
matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. 
Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible 
risk of reoffending, and indeed, justice demands that his SORA designation reflect that fact. 
B. 
The Level 3 Calculation by the Board Is Not Supported by Facts or the Law 
Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended 
that Jeffrey Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any key 
factors that suggesting that he might pose a dangerous risk of reoffense or significant harm to 
society. Upon closer inspection, the Case Summary accompanying the Board recommendation 
reveals that the reviewer improperly considered and elaborated upon a host of unsupported 
hearsay allegations from an 86-page police report that has been proven materially false in 
numerous key respects and was largely discredited by prosecutors. This is patently improper 
under SORA, as the Guidelines direct that only "reliable hearsay evidence" may be considered 
and points should not be assessed for a factor "unless there is clear and convincing evidence or 
the existence of that factor." See Correction Law §§ 168-d(3), 168-n(3); Sex Offender 
Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 5, ¶ 7; 
In addition, the SORA Guidelines explicitly provide, "The fact that an offender was not indicted 
for an offense may be strong evidence that the offense did not occur." Sex Offender Registration 
Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 5, ¶ 7. 
Here, the Board reviewer completely ignored the fact that Epstein was only convicted of 
non-violent offenses related to consensual prostitution activity, and instead scored Mr. Epstein 
for "forcible compulsion" by manufacturing a claim -- not even contained in the police report --
of "forcible rape" of a "16-year-old victim." Significantly, the allegations of this "victim" --
who was never able to state with certainty in her discredited account to police that she was under 
9 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723416

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
18 at the time she had intercourse with Epstein and who only agreed to speak with detectives in 
an effort to curry favor with prosecutors after she was arrested for drug possession -- were not 
prosecuted at all. [Check these facts.' Similarly, notwithstanding SORA's clear direction about 
the quantum of evidence required to support scoring for a given risk assessment factor, the 
reviewer scored Mr. Epstein for "prior criminal history" while at the same time acknowledging 
the utter lack of "specific information" about an unexplained 1973 non-U.S., potentially non-
criminal offense. [Should this be omitted?' The reviewer's willingness to assess Mr. Epstein 
points based on speculation that falls far short of "clear and convincing evidence" is at best 
improper, and at worst, suspect. 
Perhaps more egregious than the reviewer's indifference to the legal standard of evidence 
required to score an offender under SORA is the utter lack of rigor that the reviewer 
demonstrated in analyzing the allegations against Epstein. The "lump it all together" summary 
submitted in support of the reviewer's Level 3 recommendation makes no attempt to separate 
allegations concerning potentially registerable offenses from alleged descriptions of non-violent 
sexual activity among consenting adults. In fact, the vast majority of allegations contained in the 
discredited police report involve women who were aged seventeen and above, or women who 
were unable to specify their ages and/or the timing of certain activities in which they claim to 
have willingly participated. Such allegations certainly are not a proper basis for assessing Mr. 
Epstein's risk level and supposed danger to society for purposes of a SORA determination. 
While case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders with the knowledge 
that they will be relied on by courts generally constitute "reliable hearsay" in SORA hearings, 
the New York Court of Appeals has held that a Board case summary "may be rejected when it is 
unduly speculative or its accuracy is undermined by other more compelling evidence." People v. 
Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 5_ (2009). Here, the case summary prepared by the Board reviewer 
should be summarily rejected as unduly speculative, unreliable, and plainly inaccurate. Indeed, 
the reviewer who completed Mr. Epstein's case summary betrayed an improper bias against what 
the reviewer perceived to be Mr. Epstein's personal -- but legal -- sexual preferences for women 
between the ages of 17 and 20 by offering the inflammatory, groundless, and thoroughly 
subjective contention that "Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth and power" in such a way so that he 
could "take advantage of many teenage girls to satisfy his own sexual perversions." See Case 
Summary at 2. Such skewed, conclusory personal opinion has no place in a legal risk assessment 
instrument. 
In short, the Level 3 recommendation of the Board in this case is legally and factually 
insupportable and should be wholly disregarded. To attempt to defend such a baseless risk 
assessment would necessarily involve a lengthy and involved evidentiary hearing, as the 
unreliability of the hearsay allegations contained in the police report and taped witness 
interviews in this matter have been demonstrated time and again in the five-year history of this 
case. But more to the point, the Board's recommendation completely distorts the record and 
does not reflect an accurate and reasoned evaluation of the actual risk posed to the People of the 
State of New York by Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Epstein hardly represents the "worst of the worst" of 
10 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723417

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
sex offenders required to register, and for this reason alone, the Board's recommendation should 
be rejected. 
IV. 
A Designation of Level 1 Under SORA Will More Than Adequately Protect the 
People of the State of New York from Any Negligible Threat Posed by Jeffrey 
Epstein 
To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that intentions of 
SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Jeffrey Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Florida 
convictions. The touchstone for assigning a proper SORA designation is whether the offender is 
prone to reoffend, and an evaluation of the relevant factors of his offenses, coupled with 
information about Mr. Epstein's background and circumstances, should lead to the inescapable 
conclusion that Jeffrey Epstein is not the typical Level 2 or 3 sex offender that the District 
Attorney's Office regularly encounters, nor is he the "wolf in sheep's clothing" who poses a 
latent threat to the unwary. Rather, Mr. Epstein is an accomplished, financially successful 
mature businessman in the public eye who got a carried away in his extravagant self-indulgence, 
and as a result, made bad choices that will haunt him for the rest of his days. 
Under New York law, as a Level 1 sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein will be required to 
register his personal information with local New York law enforcement officials, and for a 
period of twenty years, provide annual verification of his residence, make timely updates of any 
change of address, and renew his photograph on file every three years. (At 57 years old, even as 
a Level 1 offender, Mr. Epstein is likely to have to register with authorities in New York for 
most if not all of his remaining years.) In addition, during the period of his registration, law 
enforcement officials will be able to disseminate this personal information about Mr. Epstein as 
they deem appropriate in their discretion. See Correction Law § 168-1(6)(a). Of course, this is in 
addition to the reporting requirements with which Mr. Epstein must comply in Florida, the state 
where he spends the majority of his time. 
In short, designating Jeffrey Epstein with Level 1 SORA designation will provide the 
People of the State of New York with full and adequate protection against the virtually non-
existent risk of reoffense that Jeffrey Epstein poses, particularly given the relatively short amount 
of time that Mr. Epstein spends in the city and in the state. To require him to comply with any 
more stringent demands under SORA would be to squander the City's resources to contain a risk 
of reoffense that does not exist. Moreover, imposing the more severe reporting requirements of a 
higher sex offender risk designation upon Jeffrey Epstein would not serve the ends of justice and 
the protective -- not punitive -- goals which SORA is intended to promote. 
11 
K&E 17760332.2 
EFTA00723418