Rachel Maimin, a former SDNY prosecutor, provides commentary surrounding the Southern District of New York’s sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein across various media outlets. In CNN Maimin states, "It certainly is clear that [the agreement] only restricts the U.S. Attorney's office in Florida, so on its face it would appear to not preclude SDNY, but they have to be clear that this is a different crime…[T]he understanding assumes that the person is brought to justice in the original district, and he clearly wasn't here." She predicts: "There's going to be legitimate, real litigation about how the non-prosecution agreement plays into the case…I don't know if [Epstein's counsels' double jeopardy argument is] a winner at the end of the day because of the plain language of the agreement, but it sounds like that may be their best defense, because there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence." In ABC News Radio, Maimin responds to the defense team’s argument that this latest proceeding is a “do-over for the feds” who, ten years ago, had allowed Epstein to plead guilty to lesser charges and enter a non-prosecution agreement in Florida. In the New York Post, Maimin notes that the judge overseeing his case is known for having “little sympathy” for wealthy defendants who can afford to enjoy the comforts of home, while underprivileged defendants cannot. Later, Maimin comments for CNN on evidentiary issues arising from searches of Epstein’s properties in the ongoing sex-trafficking case against the now-deceased financier and others who may have been involved in the alleged conspiracy. Maimin observes that prosecutors are likely to use materials seized from a search of his New York mansion before his arrest and that the videos and photos obtained may implicate other people in criminal activity. "Others wouldn't have standing to object to it because they have no privacy interest in the property,” she says. “[I]f prosecutors are contemplating new charges beyond conspiracy, they may choose to obtain a new search warrant for the material out of an abundance of caution.”