{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "244",
    "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 244 of 348\n\nreview the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's \"unprecedentedly expansive interpretation\" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255.\n\nIn a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the NPA to resolve \"disagreements\" with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to \"place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.\" Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings.\n\nI understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I will 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 [the CVRA] 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.\n\nAcosta told OPR that he \"would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office,\" and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafaña. Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the role of the USAO, \"to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome.\"322 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office's ability to \"fulfill whatever obligation they have,\" and he added, \"Let's not assume . . . that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors.\" Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding \"that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing.\" Acosta also told OPR that the state would\n\n322 Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense, \"Are there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage],\" to which Lefkowitz replied, \"The state should have their own mechanism.\" At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution, upon request, victims were afforded the \"right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at\" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla. Const. art. I, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, \"Law enforcement personnel shall ensure\" that victims are given information about \"[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the victim[.]\" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(a) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, \"in a case in which the victim is a minor child,\" the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney \"in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case\" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(g) (2007).\n\n218\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003420",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 244 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's \"unprecedentedly expansive interpretation\" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two paragraphs in the NPA to resolve \"disagreements\" with the defense and to clarify that the parties intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to \"place these identified victims in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.\" Acosta also advised that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation, the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state proceedings.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and the statute. I will 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 [the CVRA] 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.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta told OPR that he \"would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if not other individuals in the office,\" and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafaña. Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the role of the USAO, \"to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state outcome.\"322 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to question that office's ability to \"fulfill whatever obligation they have,\" and he added, \"Let's not assume . . . that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors.\" Acosta told OPR that it was his understanding \"that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing.\" Acosta also told OPR that the state would",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "322 Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the defense, \"Are there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage],\" to which Lefkowitz replied, \"The state should have their own mechanism.\" At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution, upon request, victims were afforded the \"right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at\" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla. Const. art. I, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, \"Law enforcement personnel shall ensure\" that victims are given information about \"[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the victim[.]\" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(a) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, \"in a case in which the victim is a minor child,\" the guardian or family of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney \"in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the disposition of any criminal or juvenile case\" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(g) (2007).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "218",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003420",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña",
      "Krischer",
      "Lefkowitz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "State Attorney's Office",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 19, 2007",
      "December 21, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003420"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing the appropriateness of federal charges and the notification of victims. The text is mostly printed, with a footnote containing a reference to a handwritten note."
}