mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003339.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "163",
    "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 163 of 348\n\nagreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing so.\n\nC. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards\n\nAlthough Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA. Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to non-prosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified \"potential co-conspirators,\" to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity. Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals.\n\nAfter considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution.206\n\n1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration\n\nFederal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence. USAM §§ 9-27.330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1).\n\n206 OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See, e.g., FRPC 4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise \"zeal\" in advocating for the client, but does not require the attorney \"to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client.\" See FRPC 4-1.3 (comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the requirements of the standard.\n\n137\n\nDOJ-OGR-0000339",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 163 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "agreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain Departmental approval before doing so.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and Unambiguous Standards",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA. Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to non-prosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified \"potential co-conspirators,\" to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity. Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution.206",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of Incarceration",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence. USAM §§ 9-27.330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "206 OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See, e.g., FRPC 4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise \"zeal\" in advocating for the client, but does not require the attorney \"to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client.\" See FRPC 4-1.3 (comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the requirements of the standard.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "137",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-0000339",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel",
      "Lourie",
      "Villafaña"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAM",
      "DOJ",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "DOJ-OGR-0000339"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It is a formal, printed document with no handwritten notes or stamps. The text is clear and legible, with proper formatting and section headings."
}