{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "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 47 of 349\n\n4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation\n\nSeveral days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury. Krischer told OPR that \"the whole thing\" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room. The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation. The indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors. On July 23, 2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the charges were made public.\n\nVillafaña told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy might preclude a federal prosecution. Villafaña told OPR that at the time, she \"definitely believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that . . . we had sufficient evidence.\"\n\n23 Villafaña and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed them. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance in this Report.\n24 Larry Keller, \"Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls,\" Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson.\n25 Indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit 1 to this Report.\n26 In pertinent part, the state indictment read, \"[B]etween the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, [Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, . . . on three or more occasions.\" The 15-month time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time.\n27 The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See, e.g., Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.A.2, for a more detailed discussion of the Petite policy.\n\n20\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004344",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 47 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Several days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury. Krischer told OPR that \"the whole thing\" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of the room. The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because it alleged three or more instances of solicitation. The indictment did not identify the person or persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors. On July 23, 2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the charges were made public.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy might preclude a federal prosecution. Villafaña told OPR that at the time, she \"definitely believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that . . . we had sufficient evidence.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23 Villafaña and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed them. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance in this Report.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24 Larry Keller, \"Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls,\" Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25 Indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit 1 to this Report.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26 In pertinent part, the state indictment read, \"[B]etween the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005, [Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, . . . on three or more occasions.\" The 15-month time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific victims so that she could go forward at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27 The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See, e.g., Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein); Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein); and United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.A.2, for a more detailed discussion of the Petite policy.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004344",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Belohlavek",
      "Krischer",
      "Epstein",
      "Lourie",
      "Larry Keller",
      "Michael Edmondson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "State Attorney's Office",
      "FBI",
      "OPR",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 19, 2006",
      "July 23, 2006",
      "July 29, 2006",
      "August 2004",
      "October 31, 2005",
      "May 25, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "2006CF9454AXX",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004344"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and citations. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}