DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
1010 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Doj office of professional responsibility (opr) report
File Size:
1010 KB
Summary
This document is page 50 (SA-76) from a DOJ OPR report investigating the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It details retrospective interviews with prosecutors (Sloman, Menchel, Lourie) and US Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the decision to offer Epstein a two-year plea deal. The text reveals the prosecution's fear of losing a federal trial ('risk losing everything'), the desire to avoid victim trauma, and Acosta's view of the federal case as merely a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Acosta | US Attorney |
Confirmed he 'decided and endorsed' the two-year plea deal; viewed USAO role as a 'backstop' to state prosecution.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the plea deal discussions; Menchel believed he would have 'nothing to lose' and would take the case to tri...
|
| Sloman | Prosecutor/USAO Official |
Interviewed by OPR; believed Acosta made the decision based on recommendations; discussed litigation risks.
|
| Menchel | Prosecutor/USAO Official |
Interviewed by OPR; believed going to trial risked 'losing everything' and causing trauma to victims; described as on...
|
| Lourie | Prosecutor/USAO Official |
Interviewed by OPR; speculated the two-year term might have been presented by the defense; described as one of the 'f...
|
| Villafaña | Prosecutor/USAO Official |
Mentioned as part of the group discussing the decision with Acosta.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; conducting the investigation/interviews reported in the document.
|
|
| USAO |
United States Attorney's Office; the federal prosecutors handling the case.
|
|
| PBPD |
Palm Beach Police Department; mentioned regarding original charges considered at the outset of the investigation.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer).
|
Relationships (2)
Acosta made decisions based on recommendations from Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña.
Acosta made decisions based on recommendations from Menchel; described as experienced staff in Acosta's front office.
Key Quotes (7)
"Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years 'as a fair result in terms of the conduct.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #1
"The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #2
"if we . . . felt we could have gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #3
"Acosta told OPR that 'I had decided and endorsed' the two-year resolution"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #4
"Acosta viewed the USAO’s role in this case merely as a 'backstop' to the state’s prosecution"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #5
"encouraging the state to do a little bit more."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #6
"Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were 'two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta’s] front office who had tried . . . gobs and gobs of cases.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021250.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,096 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page78 of 258
SA-76
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 76 of 348
SA-76
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 76 of 348
Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer
was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an
assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.81 Sloman added
that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either
state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year
term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the
defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by
Acosta following “extended consideration, research, and discussion,” among Acosta, Sloman,
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña.82
was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an
assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.81 Sloman added
that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either
state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year
term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the
defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by
Acosta following “extended consideration, research, and discussion,” among Acosta, Sloman,
Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña.82
Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or
who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR,
however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges,
Epstein would have felt he had “nothing to lose” and “undoubtedly” would have chosen to take
the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial,
and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to
testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years “as
a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not
if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything,” and “if we . . . felt we could have
gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial.”
who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR,
however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges,
Epstein would have felt he had “nothing to lose” and “undoubtedly” would have chosen to take
the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial,
and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to
testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years “as
a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not
if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything,” and “if we . . . felt we could have
gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial.”
Acosta told OPR that “I had decided and endorsed” the two-year resolution “at some
point,” and that it resulted from “back and forth” discussion “over the course of some days or a
week or two.” As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role in this case merely
as a “backstop” to the state’s prosecution, which he explained to OPR was “a polite way of saying[,
‘]encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[’]”83 Acosta said that he understood two years’
imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the
PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation.84 Acosta also told OPR that he
point,” and that it resulted from “back and forth” discussion “over the course of some days or a
week or two.” As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role in this case merely
as a “backstop” to the state’s prosecution, which he explained to OPR was “a polite way of saying[,
‘]encouraging the state to do a little bit more.[’]”83 Acosta said that he understood two years’
imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the
PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation.84 Acosta also told OPR that he
the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in
its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar
with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable
to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government
should . . . endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information
upon which the sentencing decisions will be based.
its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar
with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable
to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government
should . . . endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information
upon which the sentencing decisions will be based.
81 In Sloman’s view, Menchel and Lourie were “two of the finest trial lawyers” in the USAO.
82 Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were “two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta’s] front
office who had tried . . . gobs and gobs of cases.”
office who had tried . . . gobs and gobs of cases.”
83 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney asserted that OPR’s use of Acosta’s quote, “a little
bit more,” “unfairly minimized” Acosta’s and the USAO’s efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta’s attorney
also asserted that the phrase was “clearly soft-spoken understatement,” that the terms obtained were “substantially
more onerous than the state’s alternative resolution,” and that Acosta was “clearly declining the invitation to take the
State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction.”
bit more,” “unfairly minimized” Acosta’s and the USAO’s efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta’s attorney
also asserted that the phrase was “clearly soft-spoken understatement,” that the terms obtained were “substantially
more onerous than the state’s alternative resolution,” and that Acosta was “clearly declining the invitation to take the
State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction.”
84 OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment
corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in
corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in
50
DOJ-OGR-00021250
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document