mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003258.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "82",
    "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 82 of 348 Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter. He specified that \"a two-year term of state imprisonment\" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote that the USAO \"would be willing to explore a federal conviction\" and retained the reference to a Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña. The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91 91 Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but \"assumed\" it was a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel \"must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed.\" Villafaña told OPR that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea. 56 DOJ-OGR-00003258",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 82 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter. He specified that \"a two-year term of state imprisonment\" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote that the USAO \"would be willing to explore a federal conviction\" and retained the reference to a Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "91 Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but \"assumed\" it was a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel \"must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed.\" Villafaña told OPR that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "56",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003258",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Menchel",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "Sloman",
      "Lourie",
      "Alex"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "September 6, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003258"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}