EFTA00029471.pdf
275 KB
Extraction Summary
13
People
12
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email forwarding a news article (law360)
File Size:
275 KB
Summary
This document is an email forwarding a Law360 article from February 2019. The article discusses a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta's handling of the 2008 Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case. It highlights legislative efforts (the Inspector General Access Act) to transfer oversight of attorney misconduct from the OPR to the independent Office of Inspector General (OIG), citing the Epstein case as a catalyst for this reform due to concerns over OPR's lack of transparency and independence.
People (13)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jody Godoy | Author |
Author of the Law360 article.
|
| Alexander Acosta | Labor Secretary / Former U.S. Attorney |
Under investigation by OPR for handling of 2008 Epstein investigation and non-prosecution deal.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of Investigation |
Billionaire accused of sex trafficking; received lenient deal from Acosta.
|
| Debbie Wasserman Schultz | U.S. Representative (D-Fla.) |
Quoted supporting the Inspector General Access Act, calling the lack of transparency in the Epstein case 'deeply dist...
|
| Jennifer Rodgers | Former Federal Prosecutor / Advisory Board Member |
Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity at Columbia Law School; quoted regarding OPR reviews.
|
| Chuck Grassley | U.S. Senator (R-Iowa) |
Former head of Judiciary Committee; supports the 2019 Inspector General Access Act.
|
| Michael Horowitz | DOJ Inspector General |
Wrote to Congress supporting the bill to expand OIG oversight.
|
| Bruce Green | Law Professor |
Fordham University; expert on prosecutorial misconduct; questions OPR independence.
|
| John Yoo | Former DOJ Attorney |
Cited as an example of OPR's lack of independence regarding the 'torture memos'.
|
| Jay Bybee | Former DOJ Attorney |
Cited alongside John Yoo regarding professional misconduct findings that were vetoed.
|
| Ted Stevens | Former U.S. Senator (R-Alaska) |
Mentioned regarding a disastrous prosecution that involved reckless professional misconduct by prosecutors.
|
| Kelly Duncan | Editor |
Edited the article.
|
| Alanna Weissman | Editor |
Edited the article.
|
Organizations (12)
Timeline (4 events)
2008
Original investigation into Epstein's sex trafficking ring.
Florida
2019-01
U.S. House unanimously passed the Inspector General Access Act.
Washington D.C.
2019-02-04
Approximate date ('Last week') it was revealed OPR opened investigation into Acosta.
Washington D.C.
Alexander Acosta
OPR
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (2)
Acosta cut a deal as federal prosecutor for Epstein in 2008.
Acosta was a U.S. attorney; DOJ is now reviewing his conduct.
Key Quotes (4)
"The American people and the victims of these horrific crimes deserve to know why justice was not served in this disturbing case, and the lack of transparency still cloaking it is deeply disturbing"Source
EFTA00029471.pdf
Quote #1
"This may be the case that pushes that over the line. And I am OK with that"Source
EFTA00029471.pdf
Quote #2
"The credibility of the department's disciplinary process is inevitably reduced when the responsible component operates under the direction of the department's senior leadership and is not subject to public scrutiny because of limited transparency"Source
EFTA00029471.pdf
Quote #3
"Do they go too easy? Are they too willing to credit what prosecutors told them? It’s hard to know"Source
EFTA00029471.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (7,091 characters)
From:
To:
Subject: Epstein Case A Turning Point In Prosecutorial Accountability?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:29:40 +0000
Importance: Normal
To:
Subject: Epstein Case A Turning Point In Prosecutorial Accountability?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:29:40 +0000
Importance: Normal
Epstein Case A Turning Point In Prosecutorial Accountability?
By Jody Godoy
By Jody Godoy
Share us on:
Law360 (February 11, 2019, 9:30 PM EST) --
The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing a deal
that a Trump administration official cut as a federal
prosecutor, and the case has added fuel to a bid to
change how the DOJ handles prosecutorial
misconduct probes.
The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing a deal
that a Trump administration official cut as a federal
prosecutor, and the case has added fuel to a bid to
change how the DOJ handles prosecutorial
misconduct probes.
Last week it came to light that the DOA Office of
Professional Responsibility had opened an
investigation into how Labor Secretary Alexander
Acosta handled a 2008 investigation into an underage
sex trafficking ring when he was a U.S. attorney. The
Miami Herald reported in November that Acosta and
another prosecutor worked with lawyers for
billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to keep the public eye off
the case and have Epstein charged with state crimes
even though investigators had gathered evidence of
an international trafficking scheme.
Professional Responsibility had opened an
investigation into how Labor Secretary Alexander
Acosta handled a 2008 investigation into an underage
sex trafficking ring when he was a U.S. attorney. The
Miami Herald reported in November that Acosta and
another prosecutor worked with lawyers for
billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to keep the public eye off
the case and have Epstein charged with state crimes
even though investigators had gathered evidence of
an international trafficking scheme.
The case has become part of a rallying cry for some
members of Congress who instead want to see such
investigations into potential prosecutorial misconduct
done by the DOJ's Inspector General, which is
independent from the agency.
members of Congress who instead want to see such
investigations into potential prosecutorial misconduct
done by the DOJ's Inspector General, which is
independent from the agency.
The law currently gives the OIG power to investigate
alleged misconduct by DOJ employees, except when
the claims “relate to the exercise of the authority of
an attorney to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.”
alleged misconduct by DOJ employees, except when
the claims “relate to the exercise of the authority of
an attorney to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.”
In January, the U.S. House of
Representativesunanimously passed a bill called the
Inspector General Access Act that would delete that
exception.
Representativesunanimously passed a bill called the
Inspector General Access Act that would delete that
exception.
At the hearing, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D
Fla., said that while lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle have long supported the concept, the situation
has become “urgent.”
Fla., said that while lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle have long supported the concept, the situation
has become “urgent.”
“The American people and the victims of these
horrific crimes deserve to know why justice was not
served in this disturbing case, and the lack of
transparency still cloaking it is deeply disturbing,”
Wasserman Schultz said at the hearing, referring to
the Epstein case.
horrific crimes deserve to know why justice was not
served in this disturbing case, and the lack of
transparency still cloaking it is deeply disturbing,”
Wasserman Schultz said at the hearing, referring to
the Epstein case.
Since 1975, the OPR has been in charge of fielding
and investigating complaints against the DOJ's
attorneys. The office opens full-blown investigations
into a fraction of those complaints, ultimately
determining how the incident occurred, be it a
mistake or willful misconduct.
and investigating complaints against the DOJ's
attorneys. The office opens full-blown investigations
into a fraction of those complaints, ultimately
determining how the incident occurred, be it a
mistake or willful misconduct.
In the past, prosecutors have been suspended or
reprimanded. In some cases where the OPR has
found that the conduct didn’t rise to misconduct,
findings get reported back to the attorney’s
supervisor.
reprimanded. In some cases where the OPR has
found that the conduct didn’t rise to misconduct,
findings get reported back to the attorney’s
supervisor.
“If you work in the Justice Department, it is really
scary to be reviewed by OPR,” said Jennifer Rodgers,
a former federal prosecutor who now serves on the
advisory board at the Center for the Advancement of
Public Integrity at Columbia Law School.
scary to be reviewed by OPR,” said Jennifer Rodgers,
a former federal prosecutor who now serves on the
advisory board at the Center for the Advancement of
Public Integrity at Columbia Law School.
But sometimes the attorneys the OPR investigates are
long gone by that point. According to the most recent OPR report from 2017, six of the 13 attorneys who
were found to have committed professional
misconduct in that year had already left the DOJ by
the time the investigation concluded. The office
authorized reporting most of them to their state bar
associations.
long gone by that point. According to the most recent OPR report from 2017, six of the 13 attorneys who
were found to have committed professional
misconduct in that year had already left the DOJ by
the time the investigation concluded. The office
authorized reporting most of them to their state bar
associations.
While the OPR focuses on individuals, Rodgers said
the OIG’s mandate is broader and involves putting
out public recommendations for systemic change
within the DOJ. The OIG already gets to review and
issue advice on issues that involve other DOJ staff,
such as FBI agents. The bill before Congress would
put attorneys on the same footing.
the OIG’s mandate is broader and involves putting
out public recommendations for systemic change
within the DOJ. The OIG already gets to review and
issue advice on issues that involve other DOJ staff,
such as FBI agents. The bill before Congress would
put attorneys on the same footing.
“This may be the case that pushes that over the line.
And I am OK with that,” Rodgers said of the Epstein
matter.
And I am OK with that,” Rodgers said of the Epstein
matter.
The OPR has also changed over the years. In 2015,
the office started documenting whether its findings
actually resulted in discipline after a recommendation
from the Government Accountability Office. The
office also expanded the number of DOJ attorneys
who could be reported to bar associations.
the office started documenting whether its findings
actually resulted in discipline after a recommendation
from the Government Accountability Office. The
office also expanded the number of DOJ attorneys
who could be reported to bar associations.
Still, some members of Congress believe the
Inspector General is better suited to the job, pointing
to the fact that the OPR is not independent from the
DOJ and has fewer reporting requirements.
Inspector General is better suited to the job, pointing
to the fact that the OPR is not independent from the
DOJ and has fewer reporting requirements.
The Inspector General Access Act is pending before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similar bills have
been proposed before, including one last year by a
group of Republican senators including then
Judiciary Committee head Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Grassley supports the 2019 bill, his staff confirmed.
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similar bills have
been proposed before, including one last year by a
group of Republican senators including then
Judiciary Committee head Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
Grassley supports the 2019 bill, his staff confirmed.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote to
Congress in support of the bill in November, saying as a statutorily independent agency the OIG is better
situated to investigate misconduct claims than the
OPR, which reports to the deputy attorney general.
Congress in support of the bill in November, saying as a statutorily independent agency the OIG is better
situated to investigate misconduct claims than the
OPR, which reports to the deputy attorney general.
“The credibility of the department's disciplinary
process is inevitably reduced when the responsible
component operates under the direction of the
department's senior leadership and is not subject to
public scrutiny because of limited transparency,”
Horowitz wrote.
process is inevitably reduced when the responsible
component operates under the direction of the
department's senior leadership and is not subject to
public scrutiny because of limited transparency,”
Horowitz wrote.
The OPR does issue an annual report breaking down
the number of complaints received and how many
resulted in action. The vast majority of complaints
pass through the office without further action. In
2017, 72 of the 636 complaints the OPR received
resulted in a formal inquiry or investigation. The
OPR report also gives the outlines of what happened
in a sample of the cases.
the number of complaints received and how many
resulted in action. The vast majority of complaints
pass through the office without further action. In
2017, 72 of the 636 complaints the OPR received
resulted in a formal inquiry or investigation. The
OPR report also gives the outlines of what happened
in a sample of the cases.
Bruce Green, a Fordham University law professor
who writes on prosecutorial misconduct, said the
OPR’s summaries aren’t enough to reassure the
public, particularly given that the office is overseen
from within the DOJ.
who writes on prosecutorial misconduct, said the
OPR’s summaries aren’t enough to reassure the
public, particularly given that the office is overseen
from within the DOJ.
“Do they go too easy? Are they too willing to credit
what prosecutors told them? It’s hard to know,”
Green said.
what prosecutors told them? It’s hard to know,”
Green said.
The biggest issue is the lack of independence, Green
said. He pointed to the example of John Yoo, the DOJ
attorney in the Bush administration who famously
authored memos offering a legal justification for
tactics such as waterboarding that the CIA used after
the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
said. He pointed to the example of John Yoo, the DOJ
attorney in the Bush administration who famously
authored memos offering a legal justification for
tactics such as waterboarding that the CIA used after
the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The OPR issued a report in 2009 finding that Yoo and
Jay Bybee, another DOJ attorney, had committed
professional misconduct and recommending they be referred to the state bar for discipline. A DOJ official
vetoed the move, saying the pair had not violated a
clear standard.
Jay Bybee, another DOJ attorney, had committed
professional misconduct and recommending they be referred to the state bar for discipline. A DOJ official
vetoed the move, saying the pair had not violated a
clear standard.
Green has written that the advent of digital media
seems to have initiated a shift towards prosecutorial
accountability, particularly in the states. However,
changing the game for federal prosecutors has proven
more difficult.
seems to have initiated a shift towards prosecutorial
accountability, particularly in the states. However,
changing the game for federal prosecutors has proven
more difficult.
He pointed to laws that were proposed but never
passed in the wake of the disastrous prosecution of
former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, on
federal corruption charges. In that case, the OPR had
concluded that two prosecutors had “engaged in
reckless professional misconduct” for not handing
over certain evidence to the defense.
passed in the wake of the disastrous prosecution of
former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, on
federal corruption charges. In that case, the OPR had
concluded that two prosecutors had “engaged in
reckless professional misconduct” for not handing
over certain evidence to the defense.
“For a moment in time, there was a push to reform
discovery law. But then it died down,” Green said.
discovery law. But then it died down,” Green said.
--Editing by Kelly Duncan and Alanna Weissman.
EFTA00029475
EFTA00029475
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document