DOJ-OGR-00021435.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page5 of 217
SA-259
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 259 of 348

[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,

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.

357 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-00021435