{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "208",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 208 of 348\n\nD. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA\n\nAfter the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: \"I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently.\"\n\nOnce the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the \"right\" to address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be \"unseemly\" to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein \"[t]oo much process,\" a result of the USAO's desire to \"do the right thing\" and to the defense team's ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement. Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach. Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder.\n\nAcosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date whilst that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example, and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, \"Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007\" to \"Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007.\" (Emphasis added.) Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department. Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his \"best efforts\" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed.\n\nE. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process\n\nThe question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which\n182\nDOJ-OGR-00003384",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 208 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: \"I was personally very frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack, I think I would have looked at this very differently.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Once the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the \"right\" to address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be \"unseemly\" to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein \"[t]oo much process,\" a result of the USAO's desire to \"do the right thing\" and to the defense team's ability to keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement. Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach. Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even harder.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date whilst that appeal was ongoing was sufficient to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example, and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, \"Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007\" to \"Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007.\" (Emphasis added.) Acosta also agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department. Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that Epstein was not using his \"best efforts\" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "182",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003384",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Department of Justice",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 24, 2008",
      "October 20",
      "October 26, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003384"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the decisions made by Acosta and the difficulties in enforcing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The document is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}