mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002635.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "142-2",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142-2 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 14\n\ncarefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.\n\nFinally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.\n\nAs part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.7 Because OPR’s mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR’s investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein’s and his assistants’ criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein’s and his assistants’ conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects’ actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects’ conduct on the basis of that subsequent information.\n\nOPR’s investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO’s investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein’s guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others’ actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR’s evaluation of the subjects’ conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them.\n\nIII. OVERVIEW OF OPR’S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK\n\nOPR’s primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to\n\n7 In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstein’s state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.\n\n8 OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR’s request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews.\n\nvii\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002635",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142-2 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduct.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state investigation.7 Because OPR’s mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the standards of professional conduct, OPR’s investigation focused on the actions of the subject attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein’s and his assistants’ criminal behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein’s and his assistants’ conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008, when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects’ actions prior to that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects’ conduct on the basis of that subsequent information.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR’s investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events relating to the USAO’s investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein’s guilty plea. As a result, many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or others’ actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR’s evaluation of the subjects’ conduct was aided significantly by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. OVERVIEW OF OPR’S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR’s primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the investigation focuses on Epstein’s state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR’s request for a written response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in preparation for their interviews.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "vii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002635",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ron DeSantis",
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "AUSA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Florida Department of Law Enforcement",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "Palm Beach County"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "June 30, 2008",
      "August 2019",
      "2006-2008",
      "mid-2019",
      "early 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "142-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002635"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. It is a formal, printed document with no handwritten notes or stamps. The text is clear and legible, with proper formatting and section headings."
}