{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "308",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 308 of 349\n\nVillafaña informed Edwards about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. Wild only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it is not surprising that Wild came away from the experience feeling confused and believing she had been misled.\n\nOPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision not to consult victims or did not address the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial.\n\nNonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or considered before the NPA was signed.\n\nAfter the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. Although the evidence supports Villafaña's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of the openness and fairness of the process. As Wild stated during the CVRA litigation, she had been \"mistreated in the process.\" When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or spoke to Edwards or other attorneys representing victims.446 Furthermore, more attention needed\n\n446 It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (\"The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.\"). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial),\n\n281\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004605",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 308 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña informed Edwards about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the state pleas would resolve the federal investigation. Edwards then filed the CVRA petition and learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas. Wild only received access to the NPA when a judge permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of interactions, it is not surprising that Wild came away from the experience feeling confused and believing she had been misled.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision not to consult victims or did not address the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed, victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or considered before the NPA was signed.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea. Although the evidence supports Villafaña's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of the openness and fairness of the process. As Wild stated during the CVRA litigation, she had been \"mistreated in the process.\" When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or spoke to Edwards or other attorneys representing victims.446 Furthermore, more attention needed",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "446 It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (\"The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.\"). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial),",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "281",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004605",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Edwards",
      "Epstein",
      "Wild",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "August 2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2255",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004605"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing the handling of victim consultations and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The text is printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}