{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "201",
    "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 201 of 348\n\nEpstein's state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.251\n\nB. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case\n\nThe leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafaña planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution of a search warrant.\n\nThe PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state\n\n250 Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state, he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a two-year sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter.\n\n251 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta \"accept[ed] OPR's conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffery Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment.\" Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter \"would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room.\" Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, \"did not challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully.\"\n\n252 Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafaña identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August 27, 2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands, but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane.\n\n175\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003377",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 201 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Epstein's state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA.251",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether additional victims might implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafaña planned to approach the female assistants to attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution of a search warrant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home, which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "250 Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state, he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a two-year sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "251 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta \"accept[ed] OPR's conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffery Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment.\" Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter \"would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel too much wiggle-room.\" Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, \"did not challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "252 Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafaña identified three of his female assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make contact with two female assistants on August 27, 2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands, but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "175",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003377",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Jeffery Epstein",
      "Villafaña"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "OPR",
      "PBPD",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Virgin Islands"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "August 27, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003377"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the handling of the case by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI, and criticizes the decision to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The document includes footnotes with additional information and context."
}