DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
956 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
4
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
956 KB
Summary
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, Villafaña, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta |
Predicted federal charges against Epstein, received communications regarding CVRA obligations, and forwarded a compla...
|
|
| Villafaña |
Received an email from Acosta, asked Oosterbaan for help, and emailed Sloman and the USAO Criminal Division Chief Sen...
|
|
| Sloman |
Received emails from Acosta, Villafaña, and the USAO Appellate Division Chief regarding the Epstein case and CVRA obl...
|
|
| Epstein | Defendant/Subject of investigation |
Subject of potential federal charges and an appeal to the Department's Criminal Division.
|
| Oosterbaan |
Was asked by Villafaña for help to move the Criminal Division review process along.
|
|
| USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior | USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior |
Received an email from Villafaña on April 24, 2008, regarding the filing of charges.
|
| USAO Appellate Division Chief | USAO Appellate Division Chief |
Informed Acosta and Sloman about CVRA obligations not being triggered until charges are filed, and sent them a copy o...
|
| Dean |
Mentioned in the case name "In re Dean", a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PBPD | government agency |
Mentioned as having seized camera memory cards for forensic examination.
|
| Department’s Criminal Division | government agency |
The division to which Epstein's defense pursued an appeal, causing delays in the federal case.
|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office supervisors considered CVRA obligations.
|
| Florida Bar | professional organization |
An attorney believed the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Department of Justice; the Appellate Division Chief confirmed her reading of guidelines with the DOJ.
|
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | court |
Issued an opinion in the case of In re Dean on May 7, 2008.
|
| Appellate Division | government agency |
A division within the USAO whose chief communicated with Acosta and Sloman about CVRA obligations.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2008-05-06
The Department’s Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein’s appeal, and as a result, Villafaña did not file charges.
2008-05-07
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in the case of In re Dean.
Fifth Circuit
early April 2008
Epstein's defense pursued its appeal to the Department’s Criminal Division.
Epstein's defense
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Florida Bar.
|
Relationships (4)
Acosta emailed Villafaña and Sloman in early April 2008 about the Epstein case, indicating they were colleagues working on the matter.
They are frequently mentioned together, receiving joint emails and communications regarding the Epstein case and CVRA obligations, suggesting a close working relationship.
Villafaña asked Oosterbaan for help in moving the review process along, indicating a professional relationship where one could ask the other for assistance.
Acosta forwarded a complaint to the Chief and received legal guidance from the Chief in return, showing a subordinate-supervisor or consultative relationship.
Key Quotes (10)
"more and more likely"Source
— Acosta
(In an email predicting that federal charges would be filed against Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #1
"move this [Criminal Division review] process along"Source
— Villafaña
(Asking Oosterbaan for help regarding the defense's appeal.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #2
"under the guise of ‘trial prep’ for the state case"Source
— Villafaña
(Describing how the defense was deposing victims, undermining the government's case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #3
"agents and the victims"Source
— Villafaña
(Part of a quote stating they were 'losing their patience'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #4
"losing their patience."Source
— Villafaña
(Describing the state of the agents and victims due to delays.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #5
"green light"Source
— Villafaña
(In an email asking if she was cleared to file charges against Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #6
"then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay."Source
— Villafaña
(Stating what should happen if she was unable to file charges on May 6.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #7
"an absolute right to meet"Source
— an attorney
(Asserting his right under the CVRA to meet with USAO officials.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #8
"our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed."Source
— USAO Appellate Division Chief
(Informing Acosta and Sloman about the Department's position on when CVRA rights attach.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #9
"confirmed with DOJ that [her] reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until a case is filed."Source
— Appellate Division Chief
(In an email to Acosta and Sloman confirming the policy on CVRA obligations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021428.jpg
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,462 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page256 of 258
SA-254
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 254 of 348
SA-254
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 254 of 348
camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain child pornography.342
By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department’s Criminal Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafaña and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were “more and more likely.” Villafaña asked Oosterbaan for help to “move this [Criminal Division review] process along,” noting that the defense continued to undermine the government’s case by deposing the victims “under the guise of ‘trial prep’ for the state case” and that the “agents and the victims” were “losing their patience.”
On April 24, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the “green light” to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafaña further cautioned that, although she was planning to file charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, “then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay.” Because the Department’s Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein’s appeal by May 6, however, Villafaña did not file charges that day.
VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION
During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department’s position that CVRA’s victims’ rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department’s policy regarding the issue.
Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him “an absolute right to meet” with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, “our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed.” On April 24, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had “confirmed with DOJ that [her] reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until a case is filed.”343
On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, In re Dean, holding that a victim’s
---
342 The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards.
343 The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department’s statutory obligations to the victim.
342 The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards.
343 The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department’s statutory obligations to the victim.
228
DOJ-OGR-00021428
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document