DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
823 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
823 KB
Summary
This legal document details internal discussions within a prosecutor's office regarding the Epstein case. It outlines the author's opposition to meeting with the defense, led by Lefcourt, arguing it would undermine the prosecution. The document also reveals significant internal conflict, as prosecutor Villafaña expressed fears to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) about the case's direction and was cautioned by her supervisor about insubordination.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lefcourt | Defense Counsel (implied) |
Mentioned as wanting to discuss "policy reasons" against prosecution, raised in his letter and a meeting.
|
| Andy | Prosecutor (implied) |
Attended a meeting with Lefcourt and the author of the text.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the prosecution being discussed.
|
| Villafaña | Prosecutor (implied) |
Cautioned by her supervisor about sending a draft email and expressed concerns to OPR about the handling of the Epste...
|
| AUSA | Assistant United States Attorney |
Mentioned as a potential replacement for the author on the case if they cannot agree with its handling.
|
| Sloman | Unknown |
One of the intended recipients of an email from Villafaña that her supervisor advised against sending.
|
| Menchel | Unknown |
One of the intended recipients of an email from Villafaña. Also mentioned in a footnote regarding OPR's draft report.
|
| Menchel's counsel | Legal Counsel |
Mentioned in a footnote as commenting on OPR's draft report.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Office | government agency |
Refers to the prosecutor's office, likely the U.S. Attorney's Office, responsible for deciding on prosecution strategy.
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Villafaña reported her concerns.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office. Villafaña believed the USAO was preparing to file charges but feared it was repeatin...
|
| State Attorney's Office | government agency |
Mentioned as having previously handled a case in a way that Villafaña feared the USAO was repeating.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (3)
The supervisor cautioned Villafaña about sending a draft email, counseled her on the potential consequences of her actions (being viewed as insubordinate, the case going away), and explained the limits of their influence compared to 'the bosses'.
Lefcourt, representing the defense, met with Andy and the author (prosecution) to argue against the federal prosecution of Epstein.
Key Quotes (8)
"policy reasons"Source
— Lefcourt (attributed)
(Describing the arguments Lefcourt wants to discuss regarding the prosecution of Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #1
"Let’s talk before this is sent, please."Source
— immediate supervisor
(A quote from Villafaña's immediate supervisor after receiving a draft email from Villafaña.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #2
"the case would go away"Source
— immediate supervisor
(What the supervisor told Villafaña would happen if she did not stay with the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #3
"would never serve a day in jail."Source
— immediate supervisor
(What the supervisor told Villafaña would happen to Epstein if she did not stay with the case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #4
"going down the same path that the State Attorney’s Office had gone down."Source
— Villafaña (paraphrased)
(Describing Villafaña's fear about the direction the USAO was taking with the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #5
"not driving the ship,"Source
— immediate supervisor
(A quote from the supervisor to Villafaña, indicating they were not in control of the ultimate decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #6
"the bosses"Source
— immediate supervisor
(Referring to the decision-makers in the office.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #7
"there’s nothing else you can do."Source
— immediate supervisor
(What the supervisor told Villafaña once 'the bosses' made a decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00021232.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,052 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page60 of 258
SA-58
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 58 of 348
SA-58
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 58 of 348
opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case
as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as
a white collar or public corruption case where the parties can
amicably work out a light sentence.49
as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as
a white collar or public corruption case where the parties can
amicably work out a light sentence.49
With respect to the “policy reasons” that Lefcourt wants to discuss,
those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment
package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those
reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability
to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn’t be a federal offense, and
(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn’t be
prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those
arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the
prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to
Lefcourt’s promised legal analysis, that also has already been
provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the
defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion
this would seriously undermine the prosecution.
those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment
package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those
reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability
to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn’t be a federal offense, and
(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn’t be
prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those
arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the
prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to
Lefcourt’s promised legal analysis, that also has already been
provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the
defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion
this would seriously undermine the prosecution.
The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the
investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation,
and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.
investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation,
and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.
I have no control over the Office’s decisions regarding whether to
meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case
will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with
these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then
I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in
agreement with the handling of the case.
meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case
will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with
these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then
I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in
agreement with the handling of the case.
After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafaña, “Let’s talk before
this is sent, please.”50 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the
email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told
Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, “the case would go away” and Epstein “would
never serve a day in jail.”
this is sent, please.”50 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the
email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told
Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, “the case would go away” and Epstein “would
never serve a day in jail.”
Villafaña told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file
charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She
also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was “going down the same path that
the State Attorney’s Office had gone down.” Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request
charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She
also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was “going down the same path that
the State Attorney’s Office had gone down.” Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request
49 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Menchel’s counsel noted Menchel’s view that the nature of a
defendant’s crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel
to discuss the merits of a case.
defendant’s crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counsel
to discuss the merits of a case.
50 The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaña that she and Villafaña were “not driving the ship,” and
once “the bosses” made the decision, “there’s nothing else you can do.”
once “the bosses” made the decision, “there’s nothing else you can do.”
32
DOJ-OGR-00021232
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document