{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "56",
    "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 56 of 349\n\nLourie followed up his email to Villafaña with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafaña believed \"the best thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The [sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict.\"43 Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and \"[w]e can discuss after that.\"\n\nLater that afternoon, Villafaña sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel, explaining that a \"conservative calculation\" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted an upward departure from that range. Villafaña told OPR that although Lourie proposed some changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case.\n\nIn an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea:\n\nMy current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely and which victims should be charged.\n\nI also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then try to see if he wants a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts.\n\nAlthough her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafaña was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafaña informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchel responded that \"[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,\" and explained that Acosta \"has your [prosecution] memo,\" but was at an out-of-town conference, adding, \"This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure\n\n43 Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general \"omnibus\" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years.\n\n29\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004353",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 56 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lourie followed up his email to Villafaña with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafaña believed \"the best thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. . . . The [sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict.\"43 Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and \"[w]e can discuss after that.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Later that afternoon, Villafaña sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel, explaining that a \"conservative calculation\" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted an upward departure from that range. Villafaña told OPR that although Lourie proposed some changes to the draft indictment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge. I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely and which victims should be charged.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a complaint, arrest him, detain him . . . and then try to see if he wants a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over] a plea than if we indict him and need the court's approval to dismiss counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we try to dismiss indicted counts.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafaña was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback. She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafaña informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges the next day. Menchel responded that \"[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,\" and explained that Acosta \"has your [prosecution] memo,\" but was at an out-of-town conference, adding, \"This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "43 Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general \"omnibus\" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004353",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lourie",
      "Villafaña",
      "Menchel",
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Alex"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Jersey",
      "Virgin Islands"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "May 11, 2007",
      "May 14, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293-1",
      "18 U.S.C. § 371",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004353"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}