mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021199.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "document_number": "77",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page27 of 258\nSA-25\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 25 of 348\n\nB. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation............................263\n\nIV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING ................265\nA. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard ............................265\nB. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing................................269\n\nV. VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS \"UNDER INVESTIGATION\" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS ...............................................273\n\nVI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION..............................................280\nCONCLUSION...............................................................283\nMETHODOLOGY .............................................................287\n\nExhibit 1: State Indictment\nExhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 5: State Information\n\nxxiii\nDOJ-OGR-00021199",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page27 of 258",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 25 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the Status of the Federal Investigation............................263",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING ................265",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard ............................265",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing................................269",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS \"UNDER INVESTIGATION\" BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS ...............................................273",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION..............................................280",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION...............................................................283",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "METHODOLOGY .............................................................287",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Exhibit 1: State Indictment\nExhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement\nExhibit 5: State Information",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xxiii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021199",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "September 6, 2007",
      "September 24, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021199"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, discussing various aspects of the investigation and prosecution. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-structured and formatted, suggesting it is an official court document."
}