DOJ-OGR-00021254.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page82 of 258
SA-80
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 80 of 348

the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of “at least two years in prison.” The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender.

A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer

Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, Villafaña, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys Lefcourt, Sanchez, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel “leading the meeting” for the USAO.87 The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafaña distributed a federal sentencing guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of 188 to 235 months’ incarceration.

Villafaña recalled that during the meeting, Epstein’s attorneys opposed the requirement of sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein serve a sentence of home confinement or “community control”88 in lieu of incarceration, and emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility.89 Villafaña told OPR that when Epstein’s attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein’s security in a state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting, Villafaña emailed Menchel, stating that she had “figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2 year cap.”

Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence show that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal

87 Villafaña was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting.

88 According to the Florida Department of Corrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control,

The Community Control supervision program was created as a diversion to incarceration or imprisonment; therefore it is an intensive supervision program where you are confined to your home unless you are working, attending school, performing public service hours, participating in treatment or another special activity that has been approved in advance by your officer. The program was designed to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a punishment alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control supervision (also known as “house arrest”) you will not be allowed to leave your home to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation, or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do . . . but it does allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones.

Florida Dept. of Corrections, Succeeding on Community Control at 1, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/cc/ccforms/Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdf.

89 Villafaña told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team “had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not.” Villafaña anticipated there would be ways to “manipulate” a state sentence and the USAO would be “giving up all control,” and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred.

54

DOJ-OGR-00021254