DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
1.05 MB
Extraction Summary
10
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
5
Relationships
14
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.05 MB
Summary
This legal document details internal discussions and challenges within the prosecution team handling the Jeffrey Epstein case. It reveals concerns among prosecutors like Acosta, Lourie, and Sloman regarding victim testimony, legal weaknesses, and setting unfavorable federal precedent, contrasting with Villafaña's proposed charges. The document highlights the complexity of the case, including victims' reluctance to testify, credibility issues raised by the defense, and the influence of Acosta's past role in the Civil Rights Division on his legal strategy.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| co-case agent | co-case agent |
Told OPR about strategies for dealing with victims' fear and located a victim outside the U.S. in early 2007.
|
| Epstein | Subject of the case |
Mentioned throughout the document as the subject of the prosecution. His full name, Jeffrey Epstein, is mentioned in ...
|
| CEOS Trial Attorney | Trial Attorney |
Worked with Villafaña, met with victims, and told OPR about victims' reluctance to testify and weaknesses in the case.
|
| Villafaña | Prosecutor (implied) |
Worked with the CEOS Trial Attorney and proposed charges against Epstein. Received a July 5, 2007 email.
|
| Menchel | Prosecutor/Official (implied) |
Received emails from Lourie and Sloman regarding the Epstein case.
|
| Lourie | Prosecutor/Official (implied) |
Sent an email to Menchel noting key issues with Villafaña's proposed charges.
|
| Acosta | Assistant Attorney General (former) |
A key figure in the prosecution, concerned with legal issues, precedent, and Project Safe Childhood. He was the forme...
|
| Sloman | Prosecutor/Official (implied) |
Mentioned as having concerns about taking the case, cited in a July 5, 2007 email.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of the case |
Mentioned by full name in a footnote by a victim who claimed only to 'know Jeffrey Epstein'.
|
| Jane Doe #2 | Victim |
An alias for a victim who initially denied involvement but later joined the CVRA litigation with new counsel.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, received information from the co-case agent and the CEOS Trial Attorney.
|
| CEOS | government unit |
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (implied by acronym). A Trial Attorney from this section worked on the case.
|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, which was considering whether it could prove the charges against Epstein and received letters...
|
| Department’s Civil Rights Division | government agency |
Formerly led by Acosta, it addressed issues of sex trafficking which influenced his view on the Epstein case.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Conducted a video-recorded interview with a victim in April 2007.
|
| The Daily Beast | company |
A media organization that published Acosta's March 20, 2011 letter online.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
A co-case agent located a victim living outside the United States.
Outside the United States
co-case agent
a victim
The CEOS Trial Attorney had meetings with some of the victims after the NPA was signed.
CEOS Trial Attorney
victims
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a footnote regarding a victim living outside of the country.
|
Relationships (5)
The CEOS Trial Attorney 'briefly worked with Villafaña on the case after the NPA was signed'.
Lourie sent an 'early email to Menchel' and later 'opined to Acosta and Menchel'.
Menchel's email cited 'Acosta's and Sloman's' shared concerns about the case.
Footnote 218 states that a victim was 'represented by an attorney paid by Epstein'.
Key Quotes (14)
"to keep them off the stand"Source
— co-case agent
(Describing one of the 'strategies' for dealing with victims' fear.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #1
"[the victims] would have testified"Source
— CEOS Trial Attorney
(Telling OPR that victims would have testified but it would have required extensive management.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #2
"deeply embarrassed"Source
— CEOS Trial Attorney
(Describing the victims' feelings about potentially being labeled as prostitutes.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #3
"there were obvious weaknesses in the case"Source
— CEOS Trial Attorney
(Her assessment of the case from an evidentiary perspective.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #4
"there is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafaña’s prosecution memorandum] as this is uncharted territory to some degree."Source
— Lourie
(His opinion to Acosta and Menchel about the legal risks of the proposed charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #5
"concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues"Source
— Acosta and Sloman (cited by Menchel)
(Cited in an email from Menchel as reasons for concern about proceeding with the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #6
"hurting Project Safe Childhood"Source
— Acosta
(One of Acosta's concerns about the case, cited by Menchel.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #7
"the legal side of things"Source
— Acosta
(Describing his own focus in the case, as opposed to the 'trial issues' his team was concerned about.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #8
"background issues"Source
— Acosta
(Referring to issues the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership that influenced his view of the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #9
"know Jeffrey Epstein"Source
— a victim
(A victim living outside the U.S. claimed only to know him in early 2007.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #10
"moved away to distance herself from this situation"Source
— a victim
(Statement made by a victim to the co-case agent in early 2007.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #11
"asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again."Source
— a victim
(A victim's request to the co-case agent in early 2007.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #12
"a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors"Source
— Acosta
(From his March 20, 2011 letter, describing the actions of Epstein's defense team.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #13
"an army of legal superstars"Source
— Acosta
(From his March 20, 2011 letter, describing Epstein's defense team.)
DOJ-OGR-00021347.jpg
Quote #14
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,263 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page175 of 258
SA-173
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 173 of 348
SA-173
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 173 of 348
d[id]n’t want to have to relive what happened to them.”217 The co-case agent told OPR that one of the “strategies” for dealing with the victims’ fear was “to keep them off the stand,” and he generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the victims’ identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villafaña on the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that “[the victims] would have testified,” but would have required an extensive amount of “victim management” because they were “deeply embarrassed” about potentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that “there were obvious weaknesses in the case,” from an evidentiary perspective.218
The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel, Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafaña’s proposed charges were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some minor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that “there is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafaña’s prosecution memorandum] as this is uncharted territory to some degree.” In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafaña, Menchel cited Acosta’s and Sloman’s “concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues” and Acosta’s concerns about “hurting Project Safe Childhood.” Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have undermined victims’ credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages.
Acosta also recalled that although his “team” had expressed concern about the “trial issues,” his own focus had been on “the legal side of things.” Notably, during his prior tenure as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Civil Rights Division, Acosta had been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the “background issues” that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership, and which influenced his view of the Epstein case, was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially unfavorable federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in 2007.219
217 In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, the co-case agent noted that in early 2007, when he located a victim living outside of the United States, she claimed only to “know Jeffrey Epstein,” and stated that she “moved away to distance herself from this situation,” and “asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again.”
218 In April 2007, a victim who was represented by an attorney paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded interview with the FBI, with her attorney and his investigator present. This victim denied being involved in, or being a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as “Jane Doe #2.”
219 In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed “To whom it may concern,” and published online in The Daily Beast, Acosta described “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars.” Most of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved
147
DOJ-OGR-00021347
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document