DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
1.08 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
5
Relationships
11
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.08 MB
Summary
This document details an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on the decision by prosecutor Acosta to pursue a state-based resolution. It reveals conflicting recollections among prosecutors, including Villafaña, Menchel, and Sloman, regarding communications with defense counsel, internal strategy discussions, and the extent of their involvement. Key issues include a rejected plea deal and Acosta's rationale for avoiding a federal trial, citing concerns about legal issues and victim testimony.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña |
An individual involved in the Epstein case prosecution who communicated with OPR, Menchel, and defense counsel.
|
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the legal case being discussed.
|
| Menchel |
An individual involved in the Epstein case prosecution who communicated with Villafaña, Sanchez, and Acosta.
|
|
| Lourie |
Mentioned as having been in direct contact with defense counsel in the Epstein case.
|
|
| Sanchez |
An individual to whom Menchel proposed a state plea deal for Epstein, which was rejected.
|
|
| Acosta |
A key decision-maker in the Epstein case who was interviewed by OPR about his decision to pursue a state-based resolu...
|
|
| Sloman |
An individual mentioned by Acosta as being involved in discussions, though Sloman stated to OPR he had no involvement...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducted interviews with Villafaña, Menchel, Acosta, and Sloman regardi...
|
| U.S. Attorney | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a state plea deal proposed by Menchel to Sanchez.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office; Acosta considered whether the USAO should pursue the case since the state had alread...
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (5)
They communicated via email about case strategy for the Epstein prosecution and shared information about interactions with other parties.
Menchel worked on the Epstein case under Acosta's authority. Both stated to OPR that Menchel would not have made a plea proposal without Acosta's knowledge, indicating a hierarchical working relationship.
They had conflicting recollections about their collaboration. Acosta recalled discussing the Epstein case with Sloman, while Sloman told OPR he had no involvement in the decision-making and little recollection of the case.
Menchel made a plea proposal to Sanchez regarding the Epstein case, which Sanchez rejected.
Villafaña was a prosecutor on the case against Epstein. She was concerned about unauthorized communications between her colleagues (Menchel and Lourie) and the defense counsel.
Key Quotes (11)
"[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein’s attorneys that is contrary to this."Source
— Villafaña
(A request made by Villafaña to be advised about communications with Epstein's attorneys.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #1
"people were communicating with the defense attorneys"Source
— Villafaña
(Her explanation to OPR for why she made her request, suspecting discussions about a plea were occurring.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #2
"a state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney],"Source
— Menchel
(The proposal Menchel told Villafaña he had made to Sanchez.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #3
"was a non-starter for them."Source
— Sanchez
(Sanchez's reported response to Menchel's plea proposal.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #4
"without having discussed it with me."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's statement to OPR that Menchel would not have discussed a potential resolution with Sanchez without his prior approval.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #5
"believed the victims"Source
— Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel
(Acosta's statement to OPR about their collective belief in the victims' accounts.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #6
"believed [Epstein] did what he did,"Source
— Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel
(Acosta's statement to OPR about their collective belief in Epstein's guilt.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #7
"about some of the legal issues . . . and some of the issues in terms of testimony."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining to OPR his concerns that influenced his decision for a state-based resolution.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #8
"do on the stand."Source
— Acosta
(A concern Acosta recalled discussing with his 'senior team' regarding how the victims would perform as witnesses.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #9
"from the earliest point"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta telling OPR when he began considering whether the USAO should pursue the case, given the state indictment.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #10
"If you would like to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution . . . that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail."Source
— Villafaña
(A note from Villafaña to defense counsel on July 4, 2007.)
DOJ-OGR-00003239.jpg
Quote #11
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,747 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 63 of 348
include concurrent time.” The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafaña did not explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail.57 Villafaña requested to be advised, “[i]f anyone has communicated anything to Epstein’s attorneys that is contrary to this.” Villafaña, who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the case, explained to OPR that she made this request because “people were communicating with the defense attorneys,” and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions about a possible plea.
In response to Villafaña’s email, Menchel notified Villafaña that he had told Sanchez “a state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney],” but Sanchez had responded that it “was a non-starter for them.”58 During his OPR interview, Menchel had no independent recollection of his conversation with Sanchez and did not remember why the defense deemed the proposal a “non-starter.” However, Menchel explained that he would not have made the proposal to Sanchez without Acosta’s knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not have discussed a potential resolution with Sanchez “without having discussed it with me.”
1. Acosta’s Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based Resolution
Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta said that although he, Sloman, and Menchel “believed the victims” and “believed [Epstein] did what he did,” they were concerned “about some of the legal issues . . . and some of the issues in terms of testimony.”59 Acosta also recalled discussions with his “senior team” about how the victims would “do on the stand.”
Acosta told OPR that “from the earliest point” in the investigation, he considered whether, because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it.
---
57 Villafaña explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a substantive charge, “consistent with the Ashcroft Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense,” with “a recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein] would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date.” See n.65 for an explanation of the Ashcroft Memo.
57 Villafaña explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a substantive charge, “consistent with the Ashcroft Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense,” with “a recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein] would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date.” See n.65 for an explanation of the Ashcroft Memo.
58 Villafaña was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Menchel’s email, Villafaña responded to defense counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, “If you would like to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution . . . that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail.”
59 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Sloman stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or deciding how to resolve it, and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NPA. However, Sloman also told OPR that he had little recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and Menchel.
37
DOJ-OGR-00003239
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document