A federal judge later found that prosecutors had violated the rights of the victims because they had concealed the agreement from the victims and pushed them to ”patience.   Acosta has repeatedly stated that he was not directly involved in the unusual agreement, that prosecutors considered it to be the best solution available and that he was ”under undue pressure from Epstein`s lawyers”. He also argued that the Crown considered a conviction by a federal court unlikely, and an agreement would therefore be the best way to stop Epstein`s exploitation of underage girls.    He also held Florida officials responsible for the work authorization granted to Epstein at the time of his conviction. Acosta called the plant`s liberation ”BS” and said that since the non-persecution agreement was an agreement between the state and Epstein, it was the authority of the state to grant it that freedom. On February 21, 2019, a Federal Court decision made the front page of Acosta`s role in the Epstein case.  The decision to keep the agreement with Epstein secret until it was finalized was found to be contrary to the 2004 Crimes Rights Act (CVRA), which informs victims of the progress of federal criminal cases. The CVRA was new and relatively new at the time of Epsteiner`s non-persecution agreement. In 2008, representatives of two of Epstein`s victims filed a complaint in federal court to terminate the federal non-prosecution agreement on the grounds that it was contrary to the CVRA.  For more than a decade, the Crown denied violating the rights of the victims and argued that the CVRA did not apply in the Epstein case.  The government`s assertion that the CVRA had not applied was based on questions of timing (whether or not it occurred prior to the filing of federal royalties), relevance (if the CVRA applied to non-prosecution agreements) and jurisdiction (whether the case were to be considered a federal or state case under the CVRA). The Tribunal rejected these arguments in the judgment of 21 February 2019 and found that the CVRA did apply and that the victims had been informed of the Epstein agreement on non-persecution before it was signed, in order to allow them to influence their conditions.
At the end of his judgment, the federal judge stated in the case that he ”did not find that the decision not to prosecute was inappropriate” but that he had ”simply decided that, on the facts of this case, there was a violation of the rights of victims [for reasonable, correct and timely notification] under the CVRA.”  As the CVRA does not impose sanctions for non-compliance with victim impact reporting obligations, the judge offered both parties an opportunity to propose remedial action – Epstein`s victims who participated in the action called for the repeal of the federal non-recourse agreement with Epstein, while the government proposed alternative approaches and said that other victims were opposed to the lifting of the agreement because of data protection issues and possible consequences for compensation paid under the agreement.  As a result of the herald investigation and related reports, members of Congress have filed a formal application in the United States.