mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021348.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "176",
    "document_number": "22-1426, Document 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, Page176 of 258\nSA-174\n\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 174 of 348\n\nThe USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña, in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she continued to have confidence in the case.220 Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pre-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances.\n\nAlthough evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007.\n\nAccording to Acosta, \"In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens,\" because solicitation was \"the province of state prosecutors.\" Acosta told OPR that he developed \"a preference for deferring to the state\" to \"make it clear that [the USAO was] not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue.\" Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the \"manifest injustice\" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a \"backstop\" to the state's prosecution, which he described as \"a polite way of saying[,] ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']\" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in \"uncharted territory,\" there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be \"weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender.\"\n\nAcosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had\n\nthe terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet.\n220 Sloman told OPR that Villafaña \"always believed in the case.\"\n\n148\nDOJ-OGR-00021348",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page176 of 258",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-174",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 174 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña, in particular, believed she could have prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she continued to have confidence in the case.220 Oosterbaan and others also believed that the government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pre-charge disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "According to Acosta, \"In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens,\" because solicitation was \"the province of state prosecutors.\" Acosta told OPR that he developed \"a preference for deferring to the state\" to \"make it clear that [the USAO was] not stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for the sake of the larger human trafficking issue.\" Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the \"manifest injustice\" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal. Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a \"backstop\" to the state's prosecution, which he described as \"a polite way of saying[,] ']encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']\" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case lay in \"uncharted territory,\" there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial, and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be \"weighed against a certain plea with registration that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "220 Sloman told OPR that Villafaña \"always believed in the case.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "148",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021348",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña",
      "Acosta",
      "Oosterbaan",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "PBPD",
      "OPR",
      "State Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "July 31, 2007",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021348"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case, discussing the USAO's decision-making process and the role of various individuals and organizations involved."
}