What’s Missing From the Conversation

About the Epstein Documents? Victims’ Rights

By: Meg Garvin, MA, JD, MsT

There has been extensive public debate about whether the Epstein documents should be disclosed. In recent days, calls to include victims’ voices in that discussion have finally emerged. But one critical piece remains missing: victims’ rights.

Privacy is not merely a courtesy; it is a fundamental right protected by law. At the highest level, the United States Constitution provides privacy protections that extend to all individuals, including crime victims.[fn1]

Many state constitutions and statutes also recognize this right, sometimes broadly, and sometimes with specific provisions for crime victims.[fn2] At the federal level, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), guarantees victims the “right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.”

When a victim’s privacy is at risk, so too may be their safety. Public disclosure of a victim’s name, address, or other identifying information in investigative, prosecutorial, or court documents not only invades their privacy but can also expose them to intimidation, harassment, or harm, undermining their rights to protection.[fn3]

These rights are grounded in due process, which under the Constitution includes both procedural and substantive protections.[fn4] Procedural due process requires that before the government deprives someone of a protected interest, they receive notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Specifically, before any document containing a crime victim’s identifying information is released publicly, the victim and their lawyer must receive timely notice and access to the documents at issue. Only then can they assert objections or seek redactions to prevent unjustified invasions of privacy or threats to safety.

This is a missing piece in the Epstein records debate. While much identifying information will likely be redacted, the risk to victims’ privacy, and therefore their right to due process, remains. Therefore, the question isn’t just whether the public has a right to know; it’s also whether victims have a right to be heard before their lives are publicly dissected.

The law is clear: they do. And in a case as high-profile and traumatic as this one, that legal and moral obligation is even more urgent.

Rights are not optional, and affording process before deprivation is not optional either. When victims’ statutory or constitutional rights are at stake, meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard are legally required.

All of this may sound complicated – and it is.

Victims should not be left to navigate these complex systems alone. This is why every crime victim should have access to a no-cost victims’ rights attorney. Without legal advocacy, victims’ rights are treated as mere suggestions rather than enforceable protections.

We need to shift the discourse. We must stop treating victims’ rights as something less than rights. That begins with recognizing the critical role of victims’ attorneys to ensure these rights are meaningful.

1 U.S. Const. amend. IV; Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598–600 (1977).
2. See generally Nat’l Crime Victim Law Inst. (NCVLI), Ten Common Victims’ Rights (2023), https://ncvli.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Common-Victims-Rights_final.pdf.
3. Id.
4. Of course substantive due process is also implicated in these situations but this blog is focused in the process.