{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "230",
    "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 230 of 348\n\n2. Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions\n\nVillafaña told OPR that during an “early” meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, which took place when “we were probably just entering into plea negotiations,” she raised the government’s obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was instructed, “Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening,” but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told, “Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them.”289 Villafaña remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.\n\nNeither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims’ view “is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time,” and he did not “recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed.” Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, “I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter.” Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, because “we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal,” and it would have been “premature” to consider notification.290\n\n3. September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, of Oosterbaan’s Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was Required\n\nOn September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government’s then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue, advising that, “the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law” and that “the [PBPD] [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law”.\n\n288 Villafaña could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007.\n289 Villafaña also recalled Menchel raising a concern that “telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein.”\n290 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Menchel’s counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña’s claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to which Menchel’s attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña’s assertion that she had received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafaña disagreed, but given OPR’s conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction.\n\n204\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003406",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 230 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña told OPR that during an “early” meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, which took place when “we were probably just entering into plea negotiations,” she raised the government’s obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was instructed, “Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening,” but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told, “Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them.”289 Villafaña remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims’ view “is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time,” and he did not “recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed.” Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, “I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter.” Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, because “we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal,” and it would have been “premature” to consider notification.290",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, of Oosterbaan’s Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was Required",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government’s then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue, advising that, “the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law” and that “the [PBPD] [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law”.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "288 Villafaña could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007.\n289 Villafaña also recalled Menchel raising a concern that “telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein.”\n290 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Menchel’s counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña’s claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to which Menchel’s attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña’s assertion that she had received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafaña disagreed, but given OPR’s conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "204",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003406",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "OPR",
      "USAO",
      "PBPD",
      "CEOS"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 6, 2007",
      "August 3, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003406"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case. It discusses the testimony of Villafaña and other individuals regarding the consultation with victims during plea negotiations. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}