What evidence did Giuffre’s legal team present in the 2022 civil case and what did the court rulings say about admissibility?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Virginia Giuffre’s 2022 civil action against Prince Andrew relied on survivor testimony, documentary requests tied to the Epstein-era settlement and allegations, and efforts to secure the duke’s sworn deposition and third‑party materials; U.S. federal judges allowed discovery to proceed while repeatedly stating they were not deciding the factual truth of the allegations and rejecting motions to dismiss based on the 2009 Epstein settlement [1] [2] [3]. Courts also accepted procedural steps that expanded Giuffre’s ability to obtain evidence—authorizing service through the duke’s U.S. counsel, setting tight deposition and discovery timelines, and entering protective orders to govern sensitive materials [4] [5].
1. The core evidence Giuffre’s team said it would rely on and seek
Giuffre’s lawyers framed the case around her sworn allegations of sex trafficking and sexual assault linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s network and identified both testimonial evidence—her own deposition under oath and cross‑examination of Prince Andrew—and documentary proof as central: they sought documents corroborating Andrew’s alibi (the PizzaExpress visit), medical records tied to his long‑publicized claim of a sweating disorder, and any relevant photographs or materials from Epstein’s files that bore on meetings and timing [3] [6]. Her counsel, led by high‑profile litigators, also pressed to use the 2009 settlement between Giuffre and Epstein as background evidence while arguing its release language did not bar claims against third parties like Andrew, and at various points referenced a photograph once reported to exist as part of the evidentiary picture, though reporting indicates that original photograph was no longer in her possession and may have been provided to law enforcement previously [4] [7].
2. How judges treated attempts to block or narrow that evidence
Federal judges in New York repeatedly declined to resolve credibility or weight issues at the pleading stage; instead, they focused on procedural and legal thresholds for admissibility and relevance. In January 2022 Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss in “all respects,” finding that the complaint was sufficiently specific and that the 2009 Epstein‑Giuffre settlement could not be read at that stage to immunize Andrew from civil suit—a ruling that allowed discovery to go forward rather than excluding Giuffre’s claims on contractual grounds [1] [2] [3]. The court emphasized its limited role in such pretrial motions and explicitly warned that its rulings were not findings on the truth of the allegations [2].
3. Discovery orders, service, and protective measures that shaped admissibility in practice
Rather than excluding categories of evidence, the court set procedures for obtaining it: it authorized formal avenues to seek testimony abroad under the Hague Convention, directed that depositions be scheduled (including a two‑day deposition for the duke), and permitted service through his Los Angeles counsel—mechanisms that materially expanded Giuffre’s ability to obtain sworn statements and documents from Andrew and third parties [4] [5]. The court also entered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order to govern “confidential material,” a practical constraint that affected how sensitive documentary evidence would be handled and thus its accessibility and potential public airing [5].
4. The limits of what the rulings established about admissibility
The rulings were deliberately cautious: judges resolved only procedural and legal gatekeeping questions, not evidentiary merits. They rejected Prince Andrew’s effort to end the case through dismissal and signaled that factual disputes and the admissibility and weight of particular exhibits (photographs, medical records, third‑party testimony) would be resolved later in discovery or at trial—if trial occurred—rather than on the pleadings [2] [1]. The subsequent out‑of‑court settlement in February 2022 precluded many contested evidentiary battles from playing out in open court, meaning that many questions about ultimate admissibility of specific items were never finally litigated in a trial record [8] [9].
5. Competing frames and implicit agendas in how evidence was litigated
Giuffre’s team framed discovery aggressively to build a public and juridical record; Andrew’s lawyers pursued dismissal and narrow readings of the Epstein settlement to avoid that exposure—an adversarial posture with reputational and tactical stakes for both sides. Courts balanced these aims procedurally, enabling discovery while resisting pretrial determinations of truth, but could not—and did not—resolve competing narratives on admissibility because the practical contest over that evidence was forestalled by the parties’ settlement [1] [8].