DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
465 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Government report / legal filing (excerpts from doj opr report)
File Size:
465 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report detailing the internal drafting process of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement. It highlights how Menchel modified Villafaña's draft to specify a two-year state imprisonment term and initially included a federal Rule 11(c) plea option, which was subsequently removed, allegedly by U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta ('Alex'). The text includes footnotes referencing emails from September 6, 2007, discussing Acosta's refusal to entertain the Rule 11(c) plea.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Menchel | DOJ/USAO Official |
Edited the draft plea letter, communicated with Acosta regarding sentencing terms.
|
| Villafaña | DOJ/USAO Staff |
Drafted the initial letter, communicated with Sloman regarding Acosta's decisions.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of the plea negotiations and proposed state imprisonment.
|
| Alexander Acosta | US Attorney (referred to as Acosta and Alex) |
Final decision maker who allegedly nixed the Rule 11(c) plea option.
|
| Sloman | DOJ/USAO Staff |
Recipient of the redrafted letter and emails from Villafaña.
|
| Lourie | DOJ/USAO Staff |
Recipient of the redrafted letter; confirmed Acosta's stance on Rule 11(c) pleas.
|
Organizations (3)
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Menchel made substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter.
Menchel forwarded drafts to Acosta; Acosta made final decisions on plea structure.
Key Quotes (4)
"a two-year term of state imprisonment' was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal interest in the case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
Quote #1
"Menchel wrote that the USAO 'would be willing to explore a federal conviction'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
Quote #2
"Menchel 'must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
Quote #3
"The final letter... was identical to Menchel's redraft, except that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021256.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,499 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page84 of 258
SA-82
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 82 of 348
SA-82
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 82 of 348
Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter. He specified that "a
two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal
interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote
that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a
Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein
would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they
speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña.
two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal
interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote
that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a
Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein
would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they
speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña.
The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except
that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91
that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c).91
91 Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges
were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was
a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a
Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña told OPR
that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea.
were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was
a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a
Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña told OPR
that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea.
56
DOJ-OGR-00021256
DOJ-OGR-00021256
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document