DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
1.06 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Government report (opr report) / court filing
File Size:
1.06 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report reviewing the conduct of Alexander Acosta and the USAO regarding the Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). OPR concludes that while no professional misconduct occurred regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) due to legal ambiguities at the time, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' by failing to ensure victims were notified of the state plea hearing. The report also details how an FBI administrative employee sent misleading form letters to victims stating the case was still 'under investigation' without proper coordination with prosecutors.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Acosta | Former US Attorney |
Criticized for poor judgment regarding the NPA and victim notification, though cleared of professional misconduct.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Mentioned regarding the federal interest in prosecuting him and the NPA.
|
| Subject Attorneys | Prosecutors/USAO Staff |
Supervisors who left the USAO or were absent; cleared of professional misconduct regarding victim interactions.
|
| FBI administrative employee | Administrative Staff |
Sent standard form letters to victims stating the case was 'under investigation' without attorney review.
|
| State Attorney | State Prosecutor |
The official to whom Acosta deferred the decision regarding victim notification for the state plea hearing.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; the body conducting the review and issuing conclusions.
|
|
| USAO |
United States Attorney's Office; the office handling the federal investigation.
|
|
| Department |
Department of Justice; mentioned in context of mission and public condemnation.
|
|
| FBI |
Federal Bureau of Investigation; agency responsible for the administrative letters sent to victims.
|
|
| Federal Courts |
Mentioned regarding the interpretation of CVRA rights.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (3)
Acosta assumed a significant role... other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO.
Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims.
Letters... were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Key Quotes (6)
"Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #1
"OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government’s interactions with victims."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #2
"The subjects did not intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #3
"Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal investigation about the state plea hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #4
"His decision left victims uninformed about an important proceeding that resolved the federal investigation..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #5
"Acosta failed to ensure that victims were made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021487.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,081 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page57 of 217
SA-311
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 311 of 348
SA-311
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 311 of 348
principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
misconduct with respect to the government’s interactions with victims. The subjects did not
intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into
the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation
without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department
did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the
federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before
criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation
was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series
of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of
the government’s treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is
contradictory to the Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims
of a crime endure.
misconduct with respect to the government’s interactions with victims. The subjects did not
intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into
the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation
without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department
did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the
federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before
criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation
was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series
of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of
the government’s treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is
contradictory to the Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims
of a crime endure.
OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as “under investigation” and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as “under investigation” and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.
After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights
requirements. Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.
whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights
requirements. Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.
285
DOJ-OGR-00021487
DOJ-OGR-00021487
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document