DOJ-OGR-00023320.tif

to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and
timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's
communications with victims.447
The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave
victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel
to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA
gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and
undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of
the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and
frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism.
Although OPR credits Villafaña's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in
dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not
prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally
handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with
victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña also
contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA
litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified
fashion.
OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the
CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar
with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above
into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to
ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever
possible. 448 For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO
for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO
failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving
inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the
Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department
components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory
messages.
independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have
permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words,
while the USAO's view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the
case agent's concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to
significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low.
447
In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can
be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries.
Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records
OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under
investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein's
state guilty plea.
448
OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines.
282
DOJ-OGR-00023320