DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
987 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
987 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing detailing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's explanation to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for his office's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Acosta justifies the decision not to pursue a more aggressive federal prosecution by citing the Petite policy, which presumes deference to state prosecutions, and arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice." He also expresses concerns that a federal trial would have set unfavorable legal precedent regarding solicitation versus trafficking and would have been traumatic for the victims.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta |
Mentioned throughout the document as the person explaining the rationale for the handling of the Epstein prosecution ...
|
|
| Epstein | Subject of prosecution |
The individual whose state and potential federal prosecution is the subject of the document.
|
| R. Alexander Acosta |
Identified in footnote 60 as the author of a 2011 letter.
|
|
| Menchel |
Mentioned in footnote 62 as having told OPR his understanding of the State's actions.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
The entity to whom Acosta is providing his explanation. Likely the Office of Professional Responsibility.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office, whose potential intervention in the Epstein case is being discussed.
|
| The Daily Beast | company |
Mentioned in footnote 60 as the online publisher of a letter from R. Alexander Acosta.
|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in footnote 62 as the entity USAO prosecutors believed had undermined the case before the state grand jury.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as the type of office that would not typically get involved in a state solicitation case in 2006.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00021238', likely referring to the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2006
Acosta contended that in 2006, it would have been highly unusual for a U.S. Attorney's Office to get involved in a state solicitation case.
Relationships (3)
Acosta was a key figure in the prosecutorial decisions regarding the case against Epstein.
Acosta provided statements and explanations to OPR to justify his actions in the Epstein case.
Key Quotes (10)
"[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . . state, saying you’re not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the [s]tate . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining his view on the Petite policy and federal deference to state prosecutions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #1
"absent USAO intervention"Source
— Acosta
(Describing the condition under which the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #2
"the federal responsibility” in this unique situation was merely to serve as a “backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."Source
— Acosta
(From a public statement he issued in 2011, explaining the limited role of the federal government in the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #3
"manifest injustice"Source
— Acosta
(The standard Acosta believed was necessary for the USAO to intervene in a case already indicted by the state.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #4
"no jail time” would have been a manifest injustice."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's explanation of what would have constituted a manifest injustice requiring federal intervention.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #5
"it would never have come to the office in the first place"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's belief about what would have happened if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #6
"it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney’s Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's contention about the legal norms in 2006 regarding federal involvement in such cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #7
"the province of state prosecutors"Source
— Acosta
(How Acosta described solicitation cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #8
"I’m not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining to OPR the legal distinction some would make between the types of crimes Epstein committed.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #9
"victim shaming"Source
— Acosta
(What Acosta estimated a trial court in 2007 might have permitted, which would have been traumatic for victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00021238.jpg
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,846 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page66 of 258
SA-64
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 64 of 348
SA-64
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 64 of 348
[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so
here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . .
state, saying you’re not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the
whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the [s]tate . . .
is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t like the outcome, except
in the most unusual of circumstances.
here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . .
state, saying you’re not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the
whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the [s]tate . . .
is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t like the outcome, except
in the most unusual of circumstances.
Acosta told OPR that “absent USAO intervention,” the state’s prosecution of Epstein would have
become final, and accordingly, it was “prudent” to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta
explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, “the federal responsibility” in this unique
situation was merely to serve as a “backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no
miscarriage of justice.”60 Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as
a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the
federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter
circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role only as preventing a “manifest injustice.”61 Acosta
explained that “no jail time” would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding
that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable
offense, “it would never have come to the office in the first place,” and therefore would not be
viewed as a manifest injustice.
become final, and accordingly, it was “prudent” to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta
explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, “the federal responsibility” in this unique
situation was merely to serve as a “backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no
miscarriage of justice.”60 Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as
a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the
federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter
circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role only as preventing a “manifest injustice.”61 Acosta
explained that “no jail time” would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding
that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable
offense, “it would never have come to the office in the first place,” and therefore would not be
viewed as a manifest injustice.
Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result
in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between “solicitation” or
“prostitution,” which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and “trafficking,” which was
an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, “it would have been
extremely unusual for any United States Attorney’s Office to become involved in a state
solicitation case, even one involving underage teens,” because solicitation was “the province of
state prosecutors.” Acosta told OPR, “I’m not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least
some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking
case.” Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal
might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.
in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between “solicitation” or
“prostitution,” which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and “trafficking,” which was
an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, “it would have been
extremely unusual for any United States Attorney’s Office to become involved in a state
solicitation case, even one involving underage teens,” because solicitation was “the province of
state prosecutors.” Acosta told OPR, “I’m not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least
some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking
case.” Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal
might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.
Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein’s
victims. In Acosta’s estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted “victim shaming,”
which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned
a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the
state grand jury found little merit to the case.62 Acosta told OPR:
victims. In Acosta’s estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted “victim shaming,”
which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned
a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the
state grand jury found little merit to the case.62 Acosta told OPR:
---
60 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta “To whom it may concern” at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
Daily Beast.
60 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta “To whom it may concern” at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
Daily Beast.
61 Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution
has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be “overcome . . . if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequate
in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence . . . is available through the contemplated
federal prosecution.” USAM § 9-2.031.D.
has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be “overcome . . . if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequate
in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence . . . is available through the contemplated
federal prosecution.” USAM § 9-2.031.D.
62 Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney’s Office had
deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State
deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State
38
DOJ-OGR-00021238
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document