DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
878 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
878 KB
Summary
This legal document details a professional conflict between two government attorneys, Villafaña and Menchel, over plea negotiations in the case of Mr. Epstein. Villafaña accused Menchel, her superior, of violating victims' rights by not consulting them, while Menchel defended his discretionary authority and criticized Villafaña's actions and judgment. The document reveals that on the same day Villafaña criticized Menchel, she herself contacted the defense (Sanchez) about a potential resolution without first speaking to the victims, highlighting the complexities and differing interpretations of prosecutorial obligations.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Villafaña | Government Attorney |
A central figure in the document, who accused her colleague Menchel of violating victims' rights legislation (CVRA an...
|
| Menchel | Chief of the Criminal Division |
A central figure in the document, accused by Villafaña of violating victims' rights. He denied the allegations, defen...
|
| Sanchez |
Mentioned as the recipient of a conversation from Menchel (which Menchel did not consider a plea offer) and an email ...
|
|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the case and potential plea negotiations discussed by Villafaña, Menchel, and Sanchez.
|
| Villafaña’s counsel | Legal Counsel |
Mentioned in a footnote as having commented on OPR's draft report, clarifying the intent of Villafaña's email to Sanc...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | Government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, the entity to which both Villafaña and Menchel provided explanations of their ...
|
| FBI | Government agency |
Federal Bureau of Investigation, mentioned as an entity Villafaña did not consult before emailing Sanchez, similar to...
|
| USAO | Government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, mentioned by Menchel as the office he left before the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement) was ful...
|
| Department | Government agency |
Refers to the Department of Justice, whose policy Menchel denied violating and whose position on the CVRA is mentione...
|
| Criminal Division | Government agency division |
The division of which Menchel is the Chief, giving him designated authority from the U.S. Attorney.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (3)
The document details a direct conflict where Villafaña accused Menchel of violating victims' rights laws, and Menchel responded by calling her email "totally inappropriate" and criticizing her judgment. They hold opposing views on procedural obligations regarding victims in plea negotiations.
Villafaña sent an email to Sanchez to discuss a potential resolution in the Epstein case, indicating a professional line of communication related to legal proceedings.
Key Quotes (10)
"[M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what’s happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it."Source
— Villafaña
(Explaining her concerns to OPR regarding Menchel's actions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #1
"totally inappropriate"Source
— Menchel
(Describing his reaction to Villafaña’s email accusing him of violating policy.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #2
"[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with” Departmental policy."Source
— Menchel
(In his reply to Villafaña, asserting his authority and denying he violated policy.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #3
"[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment"Source
— Villafaña
(Responding to Menchel's rebuke of her judgment.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #4
"first and only concern in this case . . . is the victims."Source
— Villafaña
(Stating her primary motivation in her response to Menchel.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #5
"you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims . . . is not even . . . in the same universe as to how I think about this."Source
— Menchel
(Explaining his perspective to OPR on the necessity of consulting victims during preliminary discussions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #6
"to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein’s case that could run concurrently with any state resolution,"Source
— Villafaña
(The content of an email she sent to Sanchez, which Menchel pointed out was sent without her consulting victims.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #7
"some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition]."Source
— Villafaña
(A statement made to OPR, found in a footnote.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #8
"never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be."Source
— Villafaña
(An assertion made to OPR about Menchel's actions, found in a footnote.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #9
"way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies are."Source
— Menchel
(His description to OPR of the allegations in Villafaña's email, found in a footnote.)
DOJ-OGR-00021403.jpg
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,407 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page231 of 258
SA-229
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 229 of 348
SA-229
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 229 of 348
various iterations of the victims’ rights legislation.”285 Villafaña explained to OPR her reference to the victims:
[M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents to keep the victims apprised of what’s happening with the case. So in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these plea negotiations without letting us know about it.286
In his reply to Villafaña’s email, and after noting that he found her email “totally inappropriate,” Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that “[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with” Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel’s rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafaña responded, “[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be classified as a lapse in judgment” and that her “first and only concern in this case . . . is the victims.”
Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with Sanchez as a plea offer, asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed. Menchel told OPR that “you have discussions . . . with [the] defense all the time, and the notion that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims . . . is not even . . . in the same universe as to how I think about this.” Menchel also observed that on the very day that Villafaña criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafaña had herself sent an email to Sanchez offering “to discuss the possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein’s case that could run concurrently with any state resolution,” without having spoken to the victims about her proposal.287
285 Villafaña told OPR that “some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition].” Villafaña stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the “effects on the victims” but did not likely contain information as to “how they would like the case resolved.” Villafaña asserted that Menchel “never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be.” Menchel told OPR that the allegations in Villafaña’s email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were “way out of line in terms of what the law is and the policies are.”
286 As discussed, the Department’s position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were filed against a defendant.
287 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Villafaña’s counsel asserted that her email to Sanchez was intended only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations.
203
DOJ-OGR-00021403
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document