DOJ-OGR-00021362.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page190 of 258
SA-188
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 188 of 348

promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot
and will not agree to this.

It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case.

Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing
what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the
letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly
after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz’s description of their discussions and had
discussed those disagreements with Sloman.

Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in
the October 23 letter to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during
the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting
that he did not intend to interfere with the state’s handling of the case. Contemporaneous
documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did
not want to “dictate” actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA
negotiations, Acosta asked Villafaña to “soften” certain language that appeared to require the State
Attorney’s Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his
guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have
made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the
state’s proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the
subject, rather than any new concession.

Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any
of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in
Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not
stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and
considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta,
Sloman, and Villafaña.

Finally, Lefkowitz’s October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene
regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was
“entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work
release.” Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly
that Acosta did not abandon the NPA’s explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein
to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney’s Office for an 18-month jail sentence,
although the parties understood that he would receive the same “gain time” benefits available to
all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafaña, on behalf of the
USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also
subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5,
2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that “Epstein intends to abide by
his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that
the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail.” Shortly
before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafaña wrote to the State Attorney to remind him
that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month

162

DOJ-OGR-00021362