DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg

969 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing / doj report excerpt
File Size: 969 KB
Summary

This document is page 135 (SA-161) of a legal report or filing (likely a DOJ OGR review) analyzing the conduct of U.S. Attorney Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It argues that Acosta's decision to decline federal prosecution and enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) fell within the broad discretion granted to U.S. Attorneys and did not constitute professional misconduct, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) and Supreme Court precedents.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Acosta U.S. Attorney (Former)
His decision to decline to prosecute Epstein federally is the subject of the analysis.
Epstein Subject/Defendant
Subject of the investigation and Non-Prosecution Agreement.
U.S. Attorneys Prosecutors
Discussed generally regarding their broad discretion in enforcing laws.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
USAO
U.S. Attorney's Office, handled the Epstein case.
Department of Justice
Implied by 'Department policy' and 'DOJ' in footer.
USAM
United States Attorneys' Manual, cited for policy guidance.

Timeline (2 events)

Historical context
Entering into the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement).
Unknown
Historical context (no specific date in text)
Acosta's decision to decline to prosecute Epstein federally.
USAO (implied)

Relationships (1)

Acosta Legal/Prosecutorial Epstein
Text discusses 'Acosta’s Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein'.

Key Quotes (5)

"Acosta’s Decision to Decline to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
Quote #1
"The U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation’s criminal laws."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
Quote #2
"Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, a prosecutor’s charging decisions—including declinations—are not dictated by law or statute and are not subject to judicial review."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
Quote #3
"Rather than mandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a prosecutor’s charging decisions, including that the defendant was “subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction.”"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
Quote #4
"U.S. Attorneys had “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” and could modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
Quote #5

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document