Name: 法官拒絕公開愛潑斯坦大陪審團文件 (Judge declines to release Epstein grand jury documents)
Uploaded: 2025-07-24T16:52:29.000Z
Duration: 2 min 44 s

The Florida judge has now denied a request from the Justice Department to release grand jury documents from the criminal case some 20 years ago of Jeffrey Epstein.

佛羅里達州法官現在拒絕了司法部提出的公開約 20 年前傑弗裡-愛潑斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）刑事案件大陪審團文件的請求。

So what does this ruling mean for all of the folks who are calling for transparency on this case?

那麼，這項裁決對所有要求案件透明化的人來說意味著什麼呢？

基礎被動語態

Well, it means that the documents that are related to this Florida grand jury, these are Florida grand juries in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007 that were investigating Epstein's alleged crimes in Florida.

這意味著與佛羅里達大陪審團有關的文件 是2005年和2007年在西棕櫚灘的佛羅里達大陪審團 調查愛潑斯坦在佛羅里達的犯罪指控

And if you remember, this ended up being part of a plea deal with state prosecutors that the U.S. attorney Alex Costa in Miami signed off on, which allowed him essentially to get a very, very sweetheart deal and then allowed him to essentially get away with this until 2019 when he was actually prosecuted by the federal government in the Southern District of New York.

如果你還記得，這最終是邁阿密聯邦檢察官亞歷克斯-科斯塔（Alex Costa）簽署的與州檢察官達成的認罪協議的一部分，這讓他基本上得到了一個非常非常貼心的協議，然後讓他基本上可以逍遙法外，直到2019年他被紐約南區聯邦政府起訴。

So this only pertains to the grand jury in 2005-2007 in West Palm Beach, and the judge said he cannot release it because under the law that governs this part of the country, the 11th Circuit, there is no allowance for the release of these documents.

是以，這隻涉及2005年至2007年在西棕櫚灘的大陪審團，法官說他不能公開，因為根據管轄這個地區的法律，第11巡迴法院，不允許公開這些文件。

The Justice Department had requested that they be released as part of the public interest essentially.

司法部要求將其作為公共利益的一部分予以公佈。

So the judge says, look, I can't, my hands are tied and I can't do that.

所以法官說，聽著，我不能，我的手被綁住了，我不能這麼做。

However, this continues on because the Justice Department has a pending request for the courts in New York to release the grand jury information there.

不過，此事仍在繼續，因為司法部要求紐約法院公開當地大陪審團的資訊。

Now, a lot of this is going to be duplicating documents, right?

現在，很多工作都是在複製文件，對嗎？

So presumably, if the judge in New York allows the release of this information, it will likely cover a lot of the things that were covered by this grand jury in Florida in 2005-2007.

是以，如果紐約的法官允許公佈這些資訊，那麼這些資訊很可能會涵蓋 2005-2007 年佛羅里達州大陪審團所涉及的許多內容。

Perhaps not everything, but at least what it means is that we still are waiting for the judge in New York that oversaw the Epstein case to decide whether the grand jury transcripts in that case can be released.

也許不是全部，但至少這意味著我們仍在等待紐約負責監督愛潑斯坦案件的法官決定是否可以公開該案的大陪審團記錄謄本。

Because the judge in Florida is saying, because the DOJ asked the evidence to be released due to an extensive public interest, that's not sufficient.

因為佛羅里達州的法官說，司法部出於廣泛的公眾利益而要求公佈證據，這還不夠。

It was not as part of a judicial proceeding, et cetera.

這不是司法程序的一部分，等等。

Would the judge in New York not be likely to come to that same conclusion?

難道紐約的法官不會得出同樣的結論嗎？

No, because it's a different circuit, it's a different set of law, a different precedent, a different standard that applies in that circuit.

不，因為這是一個不同的巡迴審判區，適用的是一套不同的法律、不同的先例和不同的標準。

So it is possible still for these documents to be released under this public interest exception that the Justice Department is requesting.

是以，這些文件仍有可能在司法部要求的公共利益例外情況下被公開。

So again, that's for two requests that are pending.

是以，這也是針對兩項尚未解決的請求。

One in the Ghislaine Maxwell Crate case and in the Epstein case.

一個是 Ghislaine Maxwell Crate 案，另一個是 Epstein 案。