DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
1010 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1010 KB
Summary
This legal document details a factual dispute investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concerning the Epstein case. Prosecutor Villafaña claimed her supervisors—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel—instructed her not to consult with victims about plea negotiations, an instruction they all deny recalling. The document outlines the conflicting testimonies and notes that while OPR could not definitively resolve the disagreement, it found no documentary evidence to support Villafaña's claim of a specific meeting or instruction on this matter.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña | Government employee, likely a prosecutor |
Asserts she was instructed by her supervisors not to consult victims about plea discussions.
|
| Acosta | Supervisor |
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
|
| Sloman | Supervisor |
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
|
| Menchel | Supervisor |
One of Villafaña's supervisors who she claims instructed her not to speak with victims. He does not recall such a mee...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of the "Epstein matter" and victims' desire to obtain damages from him.
|
|
| Oosterbaan | CEOS Chief |
Mentioned as having reminded Villafaña that consultation with victims is required by law.
|
| Menchel's counsel | Attorney |
Commented on OPR's draft report, reiterating Menchel's contention that Villafaña's claim was inaccurate.
|
| Menchel's attorney | Attorney |
Mentioned as pointing to evidence that allegedly refuted Villafaña's assertion.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, which conducted interviews and investigated the conflicting claims of Villafañ...
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office, where Menchel worked until August 3, 2007.
|
| CEOS | government agency unit |
Oosterbaan is identified as the CEOS Chief.
|
| PBPD | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote from Villafaña's email, likely a police department involved in the case.
|
| The Department | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of OPR's conclusion, likely referring to the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007-09-06
Villafaña sent an email to Sloman raising the victim consultation issue, who then informed Acosta.
Relationships (3)
Acosta was one of Villafaña's supervisors. Their accounts of events conflict regarding instructions about victim notification.
Sloman was one of Villafaña's supervisors. Their accounts of events conflict regarding instructions about victim notification. Villafaña emailed Sloman on 9/6/2007.
Key Quotes (8)
"we were probably just entering into plea negotiations"Source
— Villafaña
(Describing the timing of an 'early' meeting with her supervisors.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #1
"Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening."Source
— Uncertain, possibly Acosta
(Instruction Villafaña claims she received from a supervisor.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #2
"Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them."Source
— Uncertain, possibly Acosta
(Instruction Villafaña recalled receiving in a subsequent OPR interview.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #3
"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time"Source
— Acosta
(His explanation to OPR about why he did not focus on the decision to solicit victims' views.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #4
"I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter."Source
— Menchel
(Written response to OPR regarding the victim notification issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #5
"we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal"Source
— Menchel
(Explaining to OPR why the issue of victim notification would have been premature.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #6
"the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law"Source
— Villafaña
(From a September 6, 2007 email to Sloman about the victim consultation issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #7
"telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein."Source
— Menchel
(A concern Villafaña recalled Menchel raising.)
DOJ-OGR-00021404.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,977 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page232 of 258
SA-230
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 230 of 348
SA-230
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 230 of 348
2. Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions
Villafaña told OPR that during an “early” meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel, which took place when “we were probably just entering into plea negotiations,” she raised the government’s obligation to confer with victims.288 Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was instructed, “Don’t talk to [the victims]. Don’t tell them what’s happening,” but she was not told why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification during the meeting, she was told, “Plea negotiations are confidential. You can’t disclose them.”289 Villafaña remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.
Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims’ view “is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused on at least at this time,” and he did not “recall discussions about victim notification until after the NPA was signed.” Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, “I have no recollection of any discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter.” Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO, because “we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal,” and it would have been “premature” to consider notification.290
3. September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta, of Oosterbaan’s Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was Required
On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the government’s then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue, advising that, “the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law” and that “the [PBPD]
288 Villafaña could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007.
289 Villafaña also recalled Menchel raising a concern that “telling them about the negotiations could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein.”
290 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Menchel’s counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña’s claim about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to which Menchel’s attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña’s assertion that she had received an instruction from a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events about which Menchel and Villafaña disagreed, but given OPR’s conclusion that the Department did not require prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the alleged meeting and instruction.
204
DOJ-OGR-00021404
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document