mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004356.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "59",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 59 of 349\nopposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as a white collar or public corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence.49\nWith respect to the \"policy reasons\" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and (3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion this would seriously undermine the prosecution.\nThe defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation, and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.\nI have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in agreement with the handling of the case.\nAfter receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafaña, \"Let's talk before this is sent, please.\"50 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, \"the case would go away\" and Epstein \"would never serve a day in jail.\"\nVillafaña told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was \"going down the same path that the State Attorney's Office had gone down.\" Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request\n49 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of a defendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel to discuss the merits of a case.\n50 The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaña that she and Villafaña were \"not driving the ship,\" and once \"the bosses\" made the decision, \"there's nothing else you can do.\"\n32\nDOJ-OGR-00004356",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 59 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as a white collar or public corruption case where the parties can amicably work out a light sentence.49\nWith respect to the \"policy reasons\" that Lefcourt wants to discuss, those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and (3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion this would seriously undermine the prosecution.\nThe defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation, and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.\nI have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in agreement with the handling of the case.\nAfter receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafaña, \"Let's talk before this is sent, please.\"50 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, \"the case would go away\" and Epstein \"would never serve a day in jail.\"\nVillafaña told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was \"going down the same path that the State Attorney's Office had gone down.\" Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "49 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of a defendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel to discuss the merits of a case.\n50 The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaña that she and Villafaña were \"not driving the ship,\" and once \"the bosses\" made the decision, \"there's nothing else you can do.\"",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004356",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lefcourt",
      "Andy",
      "Villafaña",
      "Epstein",
      "Sloman",
      "Menchel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "State Attorney's Office",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004356"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the prosecution's strategy and the defense's requests for meetings. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}