{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "181 of 349",
    "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 181 of 349\n\nMenchel told OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO, they had a social relationship, which included, in 2003, \"a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We decided that . . . this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed not to do that.\"226 Apart from that, he stated they were \"close\" and \"hung out,\" and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with Sanchez \"changed dramatically\" when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with Sanchez would \"most likely\" have been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added, \"[T]hat was three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's thought.\"\n\nWhen asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did \"[n]ot at all\" affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover, Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term.\n\nOPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements to OPR from Menchel, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel. The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel, which took place sometime before June 26, 2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email, \"[i]t was a non-starter\" for the defense. In the lengthy email exchange with Villafaña in early July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with Sanchez about a state-based resolution was made with Acosta's \"full knowledge.\" Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel \"without having discussed it with me.\"228 Moreover, the defense did not immediately\n\n226 Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated Sanchez. OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on \"how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be,\" but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but \"[g]iven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over.\" Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with Sanchez had turned into something more than a handful of dates, he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with Sanchez influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality.\n\n227 Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with Sanchez on at least one occasion, in early 2006, after she left the USAO.\n\n228 In addition, Villafaña recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that \"Alex has decided to offer a two year state deal.\"\n\n154\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004478",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 181 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Menchel told OPR that when he and Sanchez were in the USAO, they had a social relationship, which included, in 2003, \"a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We decided that . . . this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed not to do that.\"226 Apart from that, he stated they were \"close\" and \"hung out,\" and he asserted that this was known in the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with Sanchez \"changed dramatically\" when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with Sanchez would \"most likely\" have been at office events and when she attended his wedding.227 Menchel added, \"[T]hat was three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's thought.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that his relationship with Sanchez did \"[n]ot at all\" affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover, Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements to OPR from Menchel, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel. The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel, which took place sometime before June 26, 2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with Sanchez about the possibility of resolving the federal case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the email, \"[i]t was a non-starter\" for the defense. In the lengthy email exchange with Villafaña in early July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with Sanchez about a state-based resolution was made with Acosta's \"full knowledge.\" Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense counsel \"without having discussed it with me.\"228 Moreover, the defense did not immediately",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "226 Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated Sanchez. OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it would depend on \"how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be,\" but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but \"[g]iven the sensitivity of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it over.\" Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with Sanchez had turned into something more than a handful of dates, he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with Sanchez influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of a loss of impartiality.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "227 Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with Sanchez on at least one occasion, in early 2006, after she left the USAO.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "228 In addition, Villafaña recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that \"Alex has decided to offer a two year state deal.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "154",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004478",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Menchel",
      "Sanchez",
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Alex"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "2003",
      "June 26, 2007",
      "early July 2007",
      "July 26, 2007",
      "early 2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004478"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, discussing Menchel's relationship with Sanchez and its potential impact on the case. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}