DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
65.5 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
5
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Report excerpt
File Size:
65.5 KB
Summary
This document excerpt details discussions and concerns surrounding victim notification and the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's case. Key figures like Sloman, Villafaña, and Acosta provided accounts to OPR regarding the federal plea process, communication between federal and state authorities, and the challenges of victim identification and notification, including a potential $150,000 payment for victims. The text also highlights discrepancies in victim counts and the impact of Epstein's defense team on inter-agency communications.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brad Edwards | Attorney |
Wanted to address the court or his clients wanted to address the court regarding victims.
|
| Sloman | Interviewee/Source |
Told OPR about not recalling directing Villafaña, public perception of hiding results, and concerns about prosecuting...
|
| Villafaña | Individual involved in communications |
Did not recall being directed by Sloman regarding contacts, understood state would notify victims, noted little commu...
|
| Acosta | Individual involved in communications |
Believed state would notify victims, did not know if state victims overlapped with federal victims or if USAO shared ...
|
| Belohlavek | Assistant State Attorney |
Told OPR that federal victims not party to state case couldn't simply appear; coordination needed for presentation.
|
| Epstein | Subject of prosecution |
Involved in prosecution, defense team objected to communications.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility, receiving information from Sloman, Acosta, and Belohlavek.
|
|
| USAO |
United States Attorney's Office, involved in plea, communication with State Attorney's Office, and discretion regardi...
|
|
| State Attorney's Office |
Responsible for state case, communication with USAO, and victim notification.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Federal investigation identifying additional victims
Relationships (5)
Sloman did not recall directing Villafaña; Villafaña communicated with Acosta about Sloman's understanding.
Villafaña told OPR that she and Acosta 'understood that the state would notify the state victims'.
Villafaña discussed a factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office but later stopped communicating due to Epstein's defense objections.
Epstein's defense team's objections led to Villafaña stopping communications.
Villafaña noted 'very little' communication between the two.
Key Quotes (5)
"[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any victims present who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
Quote #1
"The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution] is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
Quote #2
"it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and... result in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey, you're going to get $150,000, that's going to be instant impeachment for the defense."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
Quote #3
"The state only believed they had one victim."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
Quote #4
"The federal investigation had identified additional victims."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023271.tif
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,254 characters)
[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that
it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer
that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any
victims present who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad
Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to
address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so.
357
Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafaña to contact anyone about the plea
hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he
believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal
case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing."
Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims
or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafaña told OPR that she and Acosta
"understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that
the state only believed they had one victim. "358 Villafaña told OPR that there was "very little"
communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a
factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that... the federal investigation had
identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they
considered victims in the state case.
,,359
Sloman told OPR that the “public perception... that we tried to hide the fact of the results
of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained:
[E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the
victims were going to be notified and the state was going... to
fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims]
would be notified of... the restitution mechanism that we had set
up on their behalf.
Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO
from exercising its discretion to notify the victims,
357
it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and... result
in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be
witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey,
you're going to get $150,000, that's
going to be instant
impeachment for the defense.
Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case
would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a
presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional
investigation of the victims' allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office.
358
In an email a few months earlier, Villafaña noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution]
is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not."
359
As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaña had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding
the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications.
233
DOJ-OGR-00023271
it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer
that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any
victims present who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad
Edwards wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to
address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so.
357
Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafaña to contact anyone about the plea
hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he
believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal
case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing."
Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims
or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafaña told OPR that she and Acosta
"understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that
the state only believed they had one victim. "358 Villafaña told OPR that there was "very little"
communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a
factual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that... the federal investigation had
identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they
considered victims in the state case.
,,359
Sloman told OPR that the “public perception... that we tried to hide the fact of the results
of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained:
[E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the
victims were going to be notified and the state was going... to
fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims]
would be notified of... the restitution mechanism that we had set
up on their behalf.
Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO
from exercising its discretion to notify the victims,
357
it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and... result
in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be
witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey,
you're going to get $150,000, that's
going to be instant
impeachment for the defense.
Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case
would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a
presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional
investigation of the victims' allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office.
358
In an email a few months earlier, Villafaña noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution]
is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not."
359
As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaña had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding
the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications.
233
DOJ-OGR-00023271
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document