DOJ-OGR-00021469.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page39 of 217
SA-293
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 293 of 348

Thereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other
matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney’s discretion
the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein’s state plea hearing:

I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given
notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein’s state court [plea and]
sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim
notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States
provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition,
First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated
in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel.
I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results
of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We
intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as
required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney
regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the
state proceedings, although we will provide him with the
information necessary to do so if he wishes.

(Emphasis added.)

Acosta told OPR that he “would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman],
if not other individuals in the office.” Acosta explained that it was “not for me to direct the State
Attorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney’s Office on its obligations with respect to
the state outcome.” Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state’s
handling of the case, but he told OPR, “that doesn’t mean that they will not fulfill whatever
obligation they have. Let’s not assume. . . that the State Attorney’s office is full of bad actors.”
Sloman initially believed that “the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially
because they had restitution rights under [§] 2255”; but his expectations changed after “there was
an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to
decide how the victims were going to be notified.”417 Sloman told OPR he had been “proceeding
under the belief that we were going to notify the victims,” even though “this was not a federal
case,” but once the NPA “looked like it was going to fall apart,” the USAO “had concerns that if
we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter . . . and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be
instantly impeached by the provision that you’re entitled to monetary compensation.”

OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney’s Office notified any victims in
advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney’s Office
had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether
or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether
victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the

____________________
417 Sloman stated in his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision
together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult
with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled
discussing the issue of victim notification, and OPR found no other documentation indicating that Mandelker played
a role in the deferral decision.

267
DOJ-OGR-00021469