Attorney Alan Dershowitz continues his fight against Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, the lawyers whose client, “Jane Doe #3,” has accused him of rape in a court case challenging the terms of a plea bargain between the federal government and Dershowitz’s former client, Jeffrey Epstein. Dershowitz is not a target of that lawsuit, but has sought to clear his name by filing a sworn declaration denying Jane Doe #3’s claims, moving to intervene in the lawsuit, and suggesting that Edwards and Cassell should be disbarred for knowingly filing a false claim.
In response, Edwards and Cassell have sued Dershowitz for defamation–a suit Dershowitz has welcomed–and have claimed that Dershowitz avoided their requests that he testify in a deposition about the sexual assault accusations. They also claim that their client did not file charges against Dershowitz, as he has challenged them to do, because “the refusal to waive the statute of limitations defense precludes the filing of sexual assault charges against Alan Dershowitz”–despite the fact that Dershowitz has publicly said he waives that defense.
Now, Dershowitz has released correspondence from 2011, sent by him to Edwards and Cassell, which supports his argument today that they did not seek his deposition about claims of sexual assault against him, but rather about what he knew about his client’s alleged crimes in general. In reply, Dershowitz, citing attorney-client privilege, said that he could not testify about such knowledge, but said he would consider testifying about “non-privileged information.” In a separate letter, he said he never observed Epstein “in the presence of underaged females” and that he did not believe the lawyers could have “any reasonable basis for believing that I have,” which might serve as the basis for a deposition.
Notably, the lawyers for “Jane Doe #3” did not subpoena Dershowitz’s testimony, but now claim that “he failed to respond or testify in any fashion” to their requests for testimony.
The two letters released by Dershowitz this week refute that claim, and are as follows:
August 15, 2011
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Re: Edwards adv. Epstein
Dear Mr. Scarola:As you may know, I was Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney when he submitted his guilty plea.
Accordingly, “any knowledge” I may have in connection with that plea is privileged information. If you would let me know what non-privileged information you would seek from me, I would then be able to decide whether to cooperate.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Dershowitz
bcc: JE
____________________
August 29, 2011
Jack Scarola, Esq.
Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Re: Edwards adv. Epstein
Dear Mr. Scarola:
I have never personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage females. I do not believe you have any reasonable basis for believing that I have. If you claim to have “reason to believe,” please provide me with any such reason. I am certain I can demonstrate to you that it is false.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Dershowitz
Dershowitz adds: “The lawyers never followed up on my responses. Either they accepted my representation that I never observed Mr. Epstein in the presence of underage girls, or they engaged in legal malpractice by not following through with a subpoena, to which I would surely have responded.” He has said he is willing to be deposed about the current charges–and has said that he also looks forward to deposing Edwards and Cassell themselves.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.