DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
1.08 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
5
Events
3
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.08 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal report detailing former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's testimony to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) regarding his decision not to federally prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Acosta justified his actions by citing the Petite policy, which respects state sovereignty, arguing the federal role was only to prevent a "manifest injustice" like no jail time, which did not occur with Epstein's two-year state sentence. He also expressed concerns that a federal trial would be traumatic for victims and could set a bad legal precedent by conflating state-level solicitation with federal trafficking charges.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta | U.S. Attorney (implied) |
Mentioned throughout as the subject explaining his decisions regarding the Epstein prosecution to OPR.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the state and potential federal prosecutions being discussed by Acosta.
|
| R. Alexander Acosta |
Full name provided in footnote 60, identified as the author of a letter.
|
|
| Menchel |
Mentioned in footnote 62 as having told OPR his understanding of the State Attorney's Office's actions.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
The entity to whom Acosta is providing his explanation. Likely stands for Office of Professional Responsibility.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office, the federal entity that considered prosecuting Epstein.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as the federal office that would have been involved in a federal prosecution of Epstein.
|
| The Daily Beast | company |
Mentioned in footnote 60 as the online publisher of R. Alexander Acosta's 2011 letter.
|
| State Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned in footnote 62 as the state-level prosecuting body in the Epstein case.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2006
Acosta contended that in 2006, it would have been unusual for a U.S. Attorney's Office to get involved in a state solicitation case.
Relationships (3)
Acosta, as a U.S. Attorney, made decisions regarding the federal prosecution of Epstein.
Acosta is providing an explanation of his official actions to OPR, an oversight body.
Menchel provided information to OPR regarding his understanding of the State Attorney's Office's actions.
Key Quotes (5)
"[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . . state, saying you’re not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining his view on federalism and the Petite policy to OPR.)
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
Quote #1
"the federal responsibility” in this unique situation was merely to serve as a “backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."Source
— Acosta
(From a public statement he issued in 2011, explaining the limited role of the federal government in the Epstein case.)
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
Quote #2
"no jail time” would have been a manifest injustice."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining the threshold for what would have triggered a federal intervention.)
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
Quote #3
"it would never have come to the office in the first place,"Source
— Acosta
(Acosta's belief that if Epstein had received a two-year sentence from the state, the case would not have been considered for federal prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
Quote #4
"I’m not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case."Source
— Acosta
(Acosta explaining to OPR the legal perspective that Epstein's crimes were a state matter (solicitation) rather than a federal one (trafficking).)
DOJ-OGR-00003240.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,779 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 64 of 348
[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign . . . state, saying you’re not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they’re doing is correct, even if we don’t like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances.
Acosta told OPR that “absent USAO intervention,” the state’s prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was “prudent” to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, “the federal responsibility” in this unique situation was merely to serve as a “backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice.”⁶⁰ Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role only as preventing a “manifest injustice.”⁶¹ Acosta explained that “no jail time” would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable offense, “it would never have come to the office in the first place,” and therefore would not be viewed as a manifest injustice.
Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between “solicitation” or “prostitution,” which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and “trafficking,” which was an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, “it would have been extremely unusual for any United States Attorney’s Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage teens,” because solicitation was “the province of state prosecutors.” Acosta told OPR, “I’m not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking case.” Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.
Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein’s victims. In Acosta’s estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted “victim shaming,” which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the state grand jury found little merit to the case.⁶² Acosta told OPR:
---
60 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta “To whom it may concern” at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast.
61 Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution has vindicated the relevant federal interest to be “overcome . . . if the prior [state] sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence . . . is available through the contemplated federal prosecution.” USAM § 9-2.031.D.
62 Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney’s Office had deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State
38
DOJ-OGR-00003240
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document