DOJ-OGR-00021365.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page193 of 258
SA-191
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 191 of 348

With regard to her comment about “avoid[ing] the press,” Villafaña told OPR that her goal
was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be
covered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami,
and “if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the
courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper.”

In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafaña, as well
as Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted
from the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did
not locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of
Villafaña’s overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record,
as well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafaña consistently advocated in favor
of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her
supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the
case. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because
her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafaña objected to the decision to resolve the case
through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with
Menchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect
that resolution, Villafaña fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO’s position
despite defense counsel’s aggressive tactics.

OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense
counsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafaña “was soft on Epstein . . .
couldn’t have been further from the truth.” Sloman added that Villafaña “did her best to implement
the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable.” Lourie similarly told OPR that
when he read the district court’s February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails
from Villafaña cited in that opinion, he was “surprised to see how nice she was to them. And she
winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them. When I know the whole time she was the
one who wanted to go after him the most.” The AUSA who assisted Villafaña on the investigation
told OPR “everything that [Villafaña] did . . . was, as far as I could tell, [ ] completely pro
prosecution.”

Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other
information showing Villafaña’s consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims, a
public narrative developed that Villafaña colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the
expense of the victims. After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that
narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO’s and Villafaña’s interactions with the victims can be
criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this Report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps
Villafaña may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the
purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villafaña, in particular, cared deeply
about Epstein’s victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of
consulting with victims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims
identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to
appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villafaña
and Sloman committed professional misconduct by “threaten[ing] to send a highly improper and
unusual ‘victim notification letter’ to all” of the listed victims. Given the full context of Villafaña’s
conduct throughout her tenure on the case, OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are

165

DOJ-OGR-00021365