{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "93",
    "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 93 of 349\ngoing to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he hadn’t done up to this point.” Krischer asked, “Why would I turn that down?” Krischer also noted that at that time, sexual offender registration “was not the norm” in Florida, and he recognized that “it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”108\n\nAcosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12 meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafaña and Lourie needed “some degree of discretion to negotiate”; that “in the give and take” of negotiations, they might propose a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled “captured the conduct” in an “appropriate” way.\n\nAlthough Epstein’s attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein’s attorneys alternately expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible resolution, the USAO and Epstein’s counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with Acosta and Sloman, and they were “all satisfied in principle with the agreement.”109 The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafaña sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors, identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafaña also emailed defense counsel, stating that she had been “spending some quality time with Title 18”—referring to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a “factual basis” for any federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering.\n\nC. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months\n\nOPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie to explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was reduced. Villafaña and Acosta offered significantly different explanations.\n\nVillafaña told OPR:\n\nWe had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was108 Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration “was a common occurrence” for enumerated state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them.\n109 The email does not indicate what the parties meant by “the agreement.”\n\n66\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004390",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "header",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 93 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time—which he hadn’t done up to this point.” Krischer asked, “Why would I turn that down?” Krischer also noted that at that time, sexual offender registration “was not the norm” in Florida, and he recognized that “it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”108",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12 meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafaña and Lourie needed “some degree of discretion to negotiate”; that “in the give and take” of negotiations, they might propose a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein ultimately pled “captured the conduct” in an “appropriate” way.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although Epstein’s attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein’s attorneys alternately expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible resolution, the USAO and Epstein’s counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge. Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with Acosta and Sloman, and they were “all satisfied in principle with the agreement.”109 The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafaña sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors, identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafaña also emailed defense counsel, stating that she had been “spending some quality time with Title 18”—referring to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a “factual basis” for any federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "header",
      "content": "C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie to explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18 months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was reduced. Villafaña and Acosta offered significantly different explanations.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Villafaña told OPR:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "content": "108 Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration “was a common occurrence” for enumerated state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "content": "109 The email does not indicate what the parties meant by “the agreement.”",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "footer",
      "content": "66",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "footer",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004390",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Krischer",
      "Villafaña",
      "Lourie",
      "Epstein",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Sloman",
      "Belohlavek",
      "Jay Lefkowitz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 12",
      "September 13, 2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004390"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing the negotiations and decisions surrounding his plea agreement and sentencing. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. There is no visible handwriting or stamps on the page."
}