What are the legal outcomes for the guards charged with falsifying logs in connection to Epstein’s death?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Two Metropolitan Correctional Center officers, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, were criminally charged in November 2019 for falsifying records the night Jeffrey Epstein died, admitted to having willfully falsified count-and-round slips, entered a deal that avoided prison time through a deferred prosecution agreement in 2021, and saw the criminal case formally dropped by prosecutors at the end of December 2021 [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The original charges and alleged misconduct
Federal prosecutors indicted correctional officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas in November 2019, accusing them of neglecting required 30‑minute checks on Epstein and fabricating log entries to conceal that they had not performed those rounds, allegations framed around surveillance footage and contemporaneous reviews of the unit’s operations [1] [5] [6].
2. Admissions, plea deal and deferred prosecution
In 2021 the two officers admitted they had “willfully and knowingly” completed materially false count and round slips, and prosecutors reached a deferred prosecution agreement under which the officers avoided jail time in exchange for those admissions and other conditions—an outcome that effectively disposed of the criminal case without custodial sentences [2] [3] [7].
3. Case dismissal and official rationale reported
U.S. prosecutors formally dismissed the charges against the two guards at the end of December 2021; reporting notes that the case was ended after the officers’ admissions and resolution through the deferred prosecution process, though public accounts do not detail every prosecutorial consideration behind the dismissal [3] [4].
4. Broader watchdog findings and continuing scrutiny
Subsequent Justice Department and inspector‑general reporting amplified systemic failures at the MCC—citing malfunctioning cameras, understaffing, and falsified records across the housing unit—and recommended further accountability for other employees, with at least six staff singled out for potential charges in a later watchdog review [8] [9]. Those findings underscore that the legal outcomes for the two officers were only one piece of a larger institutional review [9].
5. Public reaction and competing framings
The plea and dismissal prompted sharp reactions: critics including elected officials called the deal “unacceptable,” arguing the public deserved fuller accountability, while defense voices and Epstein’s attorney warned against making the two officers scapegoats for broader failures—an explicit disagreement present in contemporaneous reporting [2] [1]. Reporting also documents investigators initially placing the officers on administrative leave while inquiries continued [10].
6. What the record does and does not show
Available public reporting documents the criminal charging, admissions of falsifying logs, the deferred prosecution arrangement that avoided prison, and the eventual dismissal of charges—yet it does not provide exhaustive prosecutorial memoranda or the full internal reasoning behind the decision to decline further prosecution beyond the agreement, nor does it resolve wider questions about other personnel who the watchdog later recommended for potential charges [3] [4] [8] [9].