Lessons from the Epstein Case: How Criminal Practitioners Can Serve Survivors While Protecting Their Mental Health

Sexually violent crimes are among the most psychologically devastating matters in the criminal legal system. Nearly every criminal law practitioner, whether defense, prosecution, or victim advocate, will eventually work with survivors of sexual abuse. Those who enter Special Victims Units may spend their entire careers navigating the intersection of law and trauma. Modern cases such as United States v. Epstein (2019) reveal the consequences that arise when the criminal legal system misunderstands trauma. When trauma is dismissed or misinterpreted, victims are silenced, justice is delayed or denied, and public confidence in the system erodes.

The Epstein case in particular offers a sad reality of systemic failures in responding to sexual violence. For more than a decade, Epstein exploited minors with impunity, enabled in part by profound misunderstandings about survivor behavior and the psychological effects of grooming. The Miami Herald exposé that reignited public scrutiny highlighted how Epstein's victims were frequently dismissed as unreliable or uncooperative, even though their behaviors aligned with well-established trauma patterns in minors. In the 2006 Palm Beach grand jury proceedings, prosecutors questioned teenage witnesses like suspects, focusing on issues like drug use and suggesting that the girls were committing prostitution crimes since they received payment after the abuse. Those kinds of credibility attacks treat grooming and trauma responses as evidence against children instead of signs of exploitation.

The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility later concluded that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement granted to Epstein involved serious lapses in judgment and a failure to meaningfully consider the survivors' trauma, experiences, or rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

Even years after Epstein died in federal custody, related litigation continues to reveal additional layers of the systemic breakdown. Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction for sex trafficking was upheld on appeal in 2024, reinforcing the legitimacy of survivor testimony and the validity of trauma evidence in the courtroom. Civil suits also remain ongoing against Epstein's estate and affiliated institutions, including recent settlements with major financial institutions that failed to detect or halt suspicious activity connected to Epstein's trafficking network. These developments reinforce that trauma-informed legal responses are not merely beneficial; they are indispensable. You can see a similar dynamic in other high-profile headlines, including the ongoing attention around Sean “Diddy” Combs.

Understanding the neurobiology of trauma is critical to effective representation in sexual violence cases. Trauma alters how the brain encodes and retrieves memory, often producing fragmented, nonlinear, or incomplete memories. Survivors may delay reporting due to shame, fear of retaliation, dependence on the offender, or dissociation. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the majority of sexual assaults are never reported to law enforcement, and when reports do occur, significant delays are common. Yet these trauma symptoms, such as difficulty recalling details, continued contact with the perpetrator, or inconsistencies in recounting events, are frequently used in court to attack a survivor's credibility.

The case of Epstein's victims demonstrates how trauma and grooming intersect to shape survivor behavior. Many survivors were minors from economically vulnerable backgrounds, whose dependence on Epstein's financial promises and psychological manipulation contributed to prolonged contact. Their confusion, or reluctance to disclose, was repeatedly misinterpreted as dishonesty or complicity, despite extensive psychological literature confirming that such behaviors are typical trauma responses, not indicators of fabrication. A trauma-informed lawyer recognizes these dynamics and avoids drawing adverse inferences from behaviors that are, in fact, normal reactions to trauma.

Unfortunately, traditional courtroom procedures often exacerbate trauma rather than accommodate it. Cross-examination can unintentionally re-traumatize survivors by repeating invasive questions, challenging memory gaps, or forcing victims to relive events in a hostile setting. Courtrooms are inherently adversarial spaces, and the formal, public nature of proceedings can intensify a survivor's fear, shame, or physiological trauma responses. Research shows that re-traumatization can impair cognitive functioning, reduce testimonial clarity, and lead to emotional shutdown, all of which may unfairly undermine a survivor's perceived credibility. Trauma-informed lawyering attempts to mitigate these harms by preparing survivors for courtroom processes, approaching questioning with sensitivity, and educating juries about the science of trauma so that normal trauma responses are not misinterpreted as deception.

The Epstein case underscores the consequences of failing to adopt such practices. Prosecutors and investigators in the early 2000s seemed to underestimate the power imbalance between Epstein and his victims. Their failure to implement trauma-informed interviewing contributed to missed disclosures and misunderstandings about survivors' reluctance, fear, or inconsistencies. Trauma-informed lawyering would have likely recognized the role of grooming, manipulation, and adolescent psychology in shaping victim responses. This type of lawyering would have avoided treating the absence of "normal" victim behavior as evidence of unreliability. These failures illustrate that trauma-informed practice is not merely ethically preferable, but necessary for accuracy, fairness, and justice.

In addition to supporting survivors, trauma-informed lawyering must also support practitioners' well-being. Criminal law attorneys, especially those who regularly handle sexual violence cases, face elevated risks of vicarious trauma and emotional burnout. The American Bar Association has identified sexual assault cases as among the most emotionally taxing for legal professionals due to the repetitive exposure to graphic narratives and survivor suffering. 

Trauma-informed interviewing prioritizes open-ended questions, minimizes interruptions, and allows survivors to control the pace of disclosure. Educating juries about the neurobiology of trauma helps combat common misconceptions about delayed reporting or inconsistent memory. Attorneys can reduce court-induced re-traumatization by seeking procedural accommodations where permissible, using clear and respectful questioning, and avoiding unnecessary repetition of traumatic details. Attorneys should acknowledge their own emotional limits by seeking mental health resources to mitigate vicarious trauma.

The failures exposed in the Epstein case demonstrate the profound consequences of ignoring trauma, from missed opportunities for intervention to decades-long harm inflicted upon survivors. Criminal practitioners must understand the psychological realities of sexual violence to advocate effectively. At the same time, they must care for their own mental health to continue doing this vital work with clarity. By integrating trauma science into legal practice, the criminal legal system can better protect survivors, support practitioners, and prevent the systemic failures that allowed the Epstein case to persist for so long.