{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "91",
    "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 91 of 348\n\nVillafaña told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villafaña, Belohlavek explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaña recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges, Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.106 Lourie, however, disputed Villafaña's recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was \"illogical\" to conclude that he had the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally.107\n\nDuring the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state prison. Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the entirety of his sentence, and they did not \"particularly care\" whether it was in a state or local facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months—totaling 18 months—could be served in the county jail. Villafaña told OPR:\n\nOur thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting, I remember [the defense] talking about . . . a one year count followed by a six-month count . . . that [Epstein] could serve them back to back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility. But then I said, \"But if you do that, it's still going to have to be round the clock incarceration.\" And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he] said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he would be kept in solitary confinement.\n\nVillafaña did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county jail was not a \"concession\" because he would be incarcerated regardless.\n\nNeither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was \"not offended at all\" when he learned of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein \"was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was\n\n106 Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not involve sexual offender registration.\n\n107 As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement.\n\n65\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003267",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 91 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The main body of text discussing the meeting and the terms of Epstein's plea agreement.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "106 Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not involve sexual offender registration.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "107 As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "65",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003267",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Krischer",
      "Belohlavek",
      "Lourie",
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Barry Krischer"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "September 12, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003267"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document discussing the details of a meeting regarding Epstein's plea agreement. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal case file."
}