{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "183",
    "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 183 of 348\n\nOPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with the defense.\n\nLourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie recognized that some prosecutors—like Villafaña—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of \"weakness,\" but in Lourie's view, \"information is power,\" and as long as the USAO did not share information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were \"all power to us.\" Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, \"[Y]ou're getting the information that they think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars . . . And so you can form all of that into your strategy.\" Lourie also told OPR that giving defense counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important \"part of the process\" that helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to \"believe that they are getting heard.\" When asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lourie responded, \"I don't recall ever getting . . . so many requests for meetings . . . and so many appeals and so many audiences that [Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened.\"\n\nMenchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that \"ethically it's appropriate\" to give a defense attorney \"an audience,\" and there was no real \"downside\" to doing so. Menchel added, \"[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being raised by the defense, and it's good to know\" what the defense will be.\n\nDuring his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel was unusual or outside the norm. He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team, before the NPA was signed, was \"not the first and only time I granted a meeting . . . to defense attorneys\" who requested one. Acosta did not believe it was \"atypical\" for a U.S. Attorney to meet with opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys, and that the USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel \"in the normal course.\" Furthermore, Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other \"process\" granted to the defense by the USAO and the Department, \"we successfully held firm on our positions\" on the key elements of the resolution—that is, the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims.\n\nOPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral, strategic purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lourie and one of Epstein's attorneys, in which the attorney asked for a chance to \"make a pitch\" about the victims' lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that pitch. Villafaña objected to meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lourie told her she was not being a \"strategic thinker,\" and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow-up meeting on February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the defense arguments. After Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lourie suggested\n\n157\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003359",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 183 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The full text of the document.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "157",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003359",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lourie",
      "Villafaña",
      "Menchel",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "Department of Justice",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "February 1, 2007",
      "February 20, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003359"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the reasoning behind meetings between prosecutors and Epstein's defense counsel. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}