DOJ-OGR-00023242.tif

2.
Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to
Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do
Not Currently Recall Such Instructions
Villafaña told OPR that during an "early" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel,
which took place when “we were probably just entering into plea negotiations," she raised the
government's obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was
instructed, "Don't talk to [the victims]. Don't tell them what's happening," but she was not told
why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In
a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification
during the meeting, she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."289
Villafaña remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.
Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed
not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view
"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused
on at least at this time," and he did not "recall discussions about victim notification until after the
NPA was signed." Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim
notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, "I have no recollection of any
discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter
into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter." Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not
think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO,
because "we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal," and it would
have been "premature" to consider notification. 290
3.
September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta,
of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was
Required
On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the
government's then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue,
advising that, "the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as
[CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law" and that "the [PBPD]
288
Villafaña could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007.
Villafaña also recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause
victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein."
289
290
In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña's claim
about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and
inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to
which Menchel's attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña's assertion that she had received an instruction from
a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any
reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim
consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events
about which Menchel and Villafaña disagreed, but given OPR's conclusion that the Department did not require
prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the
alleged meeting and instruction.
204
DOJ-OGR-00023242