{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "281",
    "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 281 of 348\n\nCHAPTER THREE\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS\n\nI. OVERVIEW\nIn addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act and \"misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility\" and that \"[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.\"395 The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court.\n\nOPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaña made to victims in January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008.\n\nII. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS\n\nDuring the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019 opinion, the district court concluded that \"once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.\" OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña—intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation.\n\n395 Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019).",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 281 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CHAPTER THREE\nPART THREE: ANALYSIS",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. OVERVIEW\nIn addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act and \"misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility\" and that \"[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute.\"395 The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from complaining publicly or in state court.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims, including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008. OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaña made to victims in January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE VICTIMS",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019 opinion, the district court concluded that \"once the Government failed to advise the victims about its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred.\" OPR considered this finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña—intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that obligation.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "395 Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "255",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003457",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D. Fla."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "February 21, 2019",
      "June 30, 2008",
      "January 2008",
      "February 2008",
      "June 2008",
      "September 24, 2007",
      "Feb. 21, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "359 F. Supp. 3d 1201",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003457"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, discussing the government's handling of the case and the treatment of victims. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}