{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "175",
    "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 175 of 348\n\nbeen concerned about policy and federalism issues.221 Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been \"sensitive to\" Petite policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was \"overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level.\" During his OPR interview, Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from \"a broader policy perspective\" and was worried about \"the impact that taking the case in federally may have on . . . other programs,\" although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were.\n\nC. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences\n\nOPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences.\n\nFirst, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages–outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere \"slap on the wrist,\" with \"no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no restitution for the victims.\" Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state's original charge, standing alone, would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.222 Similarly, despite defense counsel's repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to\n\n221 Sloman stated that although Acosta \"was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, . . . I was not.\" Menchel commented, \"I don't think it would have been a concern of mine.\"\n222 Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and \"had nothing to gain\" by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as \"this big Democratic donor.\" Villafaña recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that—\n\nwe were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to, we were prosecuting him because he was wealthy. . . . That one didn't work so well.\n\n149\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003351",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 175 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "been concerned about policy and federalism issues.221 Sloman told OPR that although he did not remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been \"sensitive to\" Petite policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was \"overstepping our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level.\" During his OPR interview, Menchel remembered that Acosta approached the case from \"a broader policy perspective\" and was worried about \"the impact that taking the case in federally may have on . . . other programs,\" although Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism for the victims to seek monetary damages–outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere \"slap on the wrist,\" with \"no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no restitution for the victims.\" Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the state's original charge, standing alone, would have done. Acosta's affirmative decision to intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.222 Similarly, despite defense counsel's repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "221 Sloman stated that although Acosta \"was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, . . . I was not.\" Menchel commented, \"I don't think it would have been a concern of mine.\"\n222 Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and \"had nothing to gain\" by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as \"this big Democratic donor.\" Villafaña recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that—\n\nwe were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to, we were prosecuting him because he was wealthy. . . . That one didn't work so well.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "149",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003351",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 31, 2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003351"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible, with some footnotes and citations."
}