mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003201.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "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 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\n\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\n\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\n\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-00003201",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE 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": "top"
    },
    {
      "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": "middle"
    },
    {
      "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": "middle"
    },
    {
      "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": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION................................................................................283\nMETHODOLOGY .............................................................................287",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "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": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "xxiii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003201",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "State Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "September 6, 2007",
      "September 24, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003201"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Epstein case, with various sections and exhibits. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}