DOJ-OGR-00021301.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page129 of 258
SA-127
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 127 of 348

scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve
an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by
January 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman
spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing
had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein’s
local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts
“did not fit the proposed state charge,” and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that
assessment. 159 The next day, Villafaña sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article
reporting that Epstein’s state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal
authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafaña an
email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: “‘I
[Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not
registrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is.’” 160

5. January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with Sanchez, Who Makes
Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct

On January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney Sanchez at her request.
According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things, Sanchez alleged that the
USAO’s media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national
news reporter, and Sanchez “suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC
by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein.” After Acosta excused himself to attend
another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with Sanchez “without a witness present,”
she left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez,
who expressed concern about the “leak” to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA,
and pressed for the “watered-down resolution,” which they specified would mean allowing Epstein
to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement, avoid serving time in jail, and not register
as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman’s handwritten notes of the conversation
reads: “We’re back to where we started in September.”

That evening, Villafaña expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was
affecting the USAO’s ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his
agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein
was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims,
interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact
with “potential sources of information” in the Virgin Islands, and re-initiating proceedings to
obtain Epstein’s computers.

In the meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a “soup to nuts”
review of the Epstein investigation, reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence
Villafaña had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined

159 Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident, but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth
facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor.
160 Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie, Villafaña, Krischer, and Belohlavek to discuss the state
resolution was only four months prior, not six, Lefkowitz’s reference was likely to the September 12, 2007 meeting.

101
DOJ-OGR-00021301