{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "186",
    "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 186 of 349\n\nThe meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process.\n\nEven after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233 Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear as if he \"fear[ed]\" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties.\n\nIn sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm-for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys-that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO-on factual, legal, and policy grounds-to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein.\n\n232 Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section.\n\n233 Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted.\n\n159\nDOJ-OGR-00004483",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 186 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the NPA negotiation process.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.233 Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear as if he \"fear[ed]\" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial advantage from his continued entreaties.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside the norm-for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys-that the quantity of meetings alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO-on factual, legal, and policy grounds-to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña met with defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "232 Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "233 Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "159",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004483",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Starr",
      "Fisher",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Mandelker",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Filip",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie",
      "Sloman",
      "Villafaña"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Department's Criminal Division",
      "Department",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 12, 2007",
      "December 14, 2007",
      "October 12, 2007",
      "March 2008",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004483"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses meetings between USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, and evaluates the conduct of certain individuals involved in the case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}