EFTA00181023

138 (2008), lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 711, 860 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2008)) (holding 
that where a court exercises discretion to depart from the evidence-
based scoring of an RAT, the court must base such departure on "clear 
and convincing evidence of aggravating factors to a degree not taken 
into account" in the RAI); see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk 
Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary (2006) at 4-5, ¶¶ 
5, 6. Here, the Court's SORA determination, made in the express 
absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of 
discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and 
Order. 
Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial 
objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appellant 
respectfully requests that this matter be reassigned to a different 
Justice in the Supreme Court. 
18 
The Court did not -- and could not -- cite any factors within or outside of the 
Board's consideration, proven by clear and convincing evidence, that would justify a 
Level 3 determination under RAI scoring or constitute lawful grounds for an 
upward departure. See A.82 (Tr. generally). Instead, the Court fully adopted the 
Board's calculation, scoring Appellant a presumptive rating of Level 3, without 
meaningful inquiry into any of the underlying allegations or any consideration of 
other evidence which could bear upon Appellant's risk level. See A.93:21, 94:6-96:9, 
96:11-13 (Pr.). 
44 
EFTA00181123

EFTA00181124

III. THE COURTS ORDER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE 
MANDATES OF SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE 
PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 
Finally, the Court's Order determining Appellant to be a Level 3 
sex offender is itself facially defective in numerous regards and should 
be vacated as legally invalid. In addition, the Court's failure to set forth 
any factual basis for its Level 3 determination renders the Order 
constitutionally infirm, warranting reversal on federal due process 
grounds as well. 
SORA provides that it is the "duty of the court" to determine, 
pursuant to the SORA guidelines, both the "level of notification" 
required of an offender and whether any designations defined in section 
168-a(7) apply. Correction Law §§ 168-k(2), 168-n(2). In addition, 
SORA mandates that the court "render an order" which sets forth "its 
determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which 
the determinations are based." Correction Law §§ 168-k, 168-n. 
Here, the Court's compliance with these requirements fell 
woefully short. The only order issued by the Court in this matter was a 
standard boilerplate form where the Court circled a pre-printed number 
and provided a signature and date. See A.4 (Order Appealed From, 
45 
EFTA00181125

EFTA00181126

dated Jan. 18, 2011). 
Indeed, upon close examination of the only 
"order" in this matter, it appears that the form Order is actually 
intended to be a cover sheet to accompany a more formal order, with 
written findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon submission to the 
Division. See A.4 (Order Appealed From, dated Jan. 18, 2011) (stating, 
"A copy of the order setting forth the risk level and designation 
determinations, and the findings and conclusions of law on which such 
determinations are based, shall be submitted to the Division of 
Criminal Justice Services' Sex Offender Registry Unit by the Court. In 
addition, please complete and attach this form indicating the offender's 
risk level and designation to the Court's order."). Yet this legally 
insufficient Order was served on Appellant following the SORA 
proceeding and was sent to the Division so that the Level 3 
determination could be executed and enforced. See A.78 (Letter of 
Supreme Court, dated Jan. 19, 2011). 
The appellate courts have consistently held that cursory, non-
specific "findings" issued after SORA hearings -- including the 
wholesale adoption of a Board recommendation or recitation of RAI 
factors without further explanation, as the Court offered here -- are 
46 
EFTA00181127

. 
EFTA00181128

legally insufficient under SORA. See, e.g. People a Strong, 77 A.D.3d 
717, 717-18 (2d Dep't 2010) (reversing SORA order issued without 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, where court relied on RAI but 
failed to introduce the RAI in evidence or indicate any evidence relied 
upon); People a Gilbert, 78 A.D.3d 1584, 1584 (4th Dep't 2010) (holding 
that the SORA court's conclusory recitation that it reviewed the parties' 
submissions and was adopting the Board's case summary and 
recommendation was insufficient to fulfill SORA's statutory mandate); 
People v. Miranda, 24 A.D.3d 909, 910-11 (3d Dep't 2005) (holding that 
the court's adoption of the Board's RAI scores and "generic listing of 
factors" failed to "fulfill the statutory mandate" of SORA and precluded 
"meaningful appellate review of the propriety of the court's risk level 
assessment"). 
In addition, the Order in this case is constitutionally deficient, in 
that the Court's failure to set forth any factual or legal bases for its 
Level 3 determination falls short of the minimum due process rights 
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the landmark case of Goldberg 
a Kelly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in relevant part, to 
demonstrate compliance with the procedural due process requirement 
47 
EFTA00181129

EFTA00181130

that the decision maker's conclusion rest solely on the legal rules and 
evidence adduced at hearing, "[the] decision maker should state reasons 
for his determination and indicate evidence he relied on, though his 
statement need not amount to a full opinion or even formal findings of 
fact and conclusions of law." Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970) 
(internal citations omitted).19 
In short, the minimal due process 
requirement that the order set forth the basis for the court's 
determination is designed to provide some assurance that the court's 
conclusion rested on sufficient reliable evidence--which in Appellant's 
case, it did not. 
The utterly deficient Order issued by the Court in this matter 
itself provides an independent basis for reversal of the Court's Level 3 
determination, on both state statutory and federal constitutional 
grounds. 
19 
SORA, by specifically requiring the Court to issue findings of fact and 
conclusions of law to support its determination, therefore sets forth a higher 
standard than is required by federal due process. See Correction Law §§ 168-k, 168-
n (requiring the court to "render an order setting forth its determinations and the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based'). 
48 
EFTA00181131

. 
. 
EFTA00181132

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein 
respectfully submits that the January 18, 2011 Order of the New York 
Supreme Court determining Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein to be a Level 
3 sex offender, without designation, should be vacated, and Appellant's 
SORA level should be recalculated -- either by this Court based on the 
present record or upon remand to a different Justice in the lower court 
-- in accordance with the law, based solely on the evidence that can be 
proven by clear and convincing evidence, to wit, the undisputed conduct 
encompassed by Appellant's registerable crime of conviction. 
February 22, 2011 
Respectfully submitted 
an ra ynn 
usumeci 
sandra.musumeci@kirkland.com 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 
Jeffrey E. Epstein 
EFTA00181133

EFTA00181134

PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT 
This computer generated brief was prepared using a 
proportionally spaced typeface. 
Name of Typeface: 
Century Schoolbook 
Point Size: 
14-point type 
Line Spacing: 
Double-spaced 
The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings 
and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, 
table of authorities, and printing specification statement is 10,522. 
50 
EFTA00181135

EFTA00181136

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL-SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE 
The undersigned hereby certifies that: 
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the 
exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital 
Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document 
filed with the Clerk; and 
(2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the 
most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (McAfee 
Enterprise 8.5 Virus Scan, updated as of March 9, 2009) and, according 
to the program, are free of viruses. 
Jay p. efkowitz, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKIAAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone 
Facsimile: 
EFTA00181137

EFTA00181138

. 
EFTA00181139

EFTA00181140

SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
COUNTY OF NEW YORK 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 
Plaintiff-Respondent, 
- against -
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, 
Defendant-Appellant. 
Index No.: 
30129-2010 
PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT 
1. TITLE OF ACTION: As set forth in caption. 
2. FULL NAMES OF ORIGINAL PARTIES AND ANY CHANGE IN THE PARTIES: 
As set forth in caption. There has been no change in the parties. 
3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 
OR PETITIONER: 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York. New York 10022-4611 
4. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL FOR 
RESPONDENT: 
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. 
NEW YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 
One Hogan Place 
New York, NY 10013 
Telephone: 
5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL 
IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 
6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR SPECIAL 
PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of the 
Correction Law. 
7. RESULT REACHED IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODY BELOW: 
Supreme Court, New York County, adjudged appellant Jeffmy E. Epstein to be a Level 3 sexual 
offender, without additional designation. 
8. GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVERSAL, ANNULMENT, OR MODIFICATION: The 
Court's designation of appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein as a Level 3 sexual offender was an abuse of 
EFTA00181141

• 
EFTA00181142