{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "176",
    "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 176 of 348\n\nreconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys.\n\nSecond, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's benefit.\n\nD. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein\n\nIn evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other improper motivation.\n\n1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys\n\nEpstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy Lewis, a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for Lewis, and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewis's law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez, a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm.\n\nVillafaña told OPR that she believed Acosta \"was influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys.\" Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection, neither Villafaña nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or for any other improper reason). Villafaña explained how, in her view, the \"legal prowess\" of Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case:\n\n150\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003352",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 176 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "reconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys.\n\nSecond, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's benefit.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other improper motivation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships with His Attorneys",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf was Guy Lewis, a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for Lewis, and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewis's law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez, a former AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from his previous employment with that firm.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Villafaña told OPR that she believed Acosta \"was influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys.\" Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in the following subsection, neither Villafaña nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or for any other improper reason). Villafaña explained how, in her view, the \"legal prowess\" of Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "150",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003352",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Guy Lewis",
      "Villafaña",
      "Lourie",
      "Lilly Ann Sanchez",
      "Menchel",
      "Kenneth Starr",
      "Jay Lefkowitz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department",
      "USAO",
      "Kirkland & Ellis"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003352"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the conduct of certain government attorneys involved in Epstein's case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}