DOJ-OGR-00021405.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page233 of 258
SA-231
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 231 of 348

Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.”291 Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Villafaña recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly after he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, “[Y]ou can’t do that now.” Villafaña did not recall Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction.

Villafaña told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, “[W]e’ve been advised that . . . pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification.” Sloman did not recall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he “did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA,” and “we did not have to seek approval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution in . . . filed cases.” Sloman said that no one other than Villafaña raised the notification issue, and because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman “did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA.” Louie told OPR that he had no memory of Villafaña being directed not to speak to the victims about the NPA.292 Similarly, the attorney who assumed Lourie’s supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he “assumed that was being handled.”293

Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that “there is no requirement to notify [the victims], because it’s not a plea, it’s deferring in favor of a state prosecution.” Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any “pre-NPA discussions” regarding victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA.294 Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged to OPR, “[C]learly, given the way it’s played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims].”

CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO’s stance that the CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO “posture” was not “an abuse of discretion” or “an ethical issue,” but rather reflected a “serious and legitimate

---
291 Villafaña told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because “he was the head of CEOS and because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them [to notify the victims].” As previously noted, Villafaña’s statement that victim approval had to be obtained was incorrect. Even when applicable, the CVRA only requires consultation with victims, not their approval of a plea agreement. Moreover, Villafaña’s comments concerning the pre-charge application of the USAO’s CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate the USAO’s CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August 2006.

292 Lourie noted that during this period, he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the office, but was “help[ing] [] out” from offsite because he had “historical knowledge” of the case.

293 The AUSA who for a time served as Villafaña’s co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not “know anything about” discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of the case. The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case “months earlier” and that he “didn’t have anything to do with the [NPA] negotiations.”

294 Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any “improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order to . . . instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s].”

205

DOJ-OGR-00021405