EFTA00022623.pdf
96.7 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email / meeting notes
File Size:
96.7 KB
Summary
This document contains notes from a February 2021 conference call between prosecutors (SDNY) and defense attorneys (Jason Foy, Eric Sarraga) representing one of the correctional officers charged in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death. The discussion focuses on a potential Deferred Prosecution (DP) agreement, with the defense arguing that the defendant had no criminal intent, was not 'up to no good,' and that the unique pressure of the Epstein case ('things are always different') is driving the prosecution. The notes mention the co-defendant 'Montell' and discuss trial adjournments and mitigating factors.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jason Foy | Defense Attorney |
Representing the female correctional officer (Tova Noel, implied); negotiating for Deferred Prosecution (DP).
|
| Eric Sarraga | Attorney |
Present on the call, likely defense team with Foy.
|
| JL | Prosecutor (AUSA) |
Discussing the government's position on trial and DP application.
|
| NR | Prosecutor (AUSA) |
Identified as 'Nick' in the text; discussing leadership changes and DP application process.
|
| Montell | Co-Defendant |
Montell Noel; the other guard charged. Discussed as having a separate analysis for DP.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased Inmate |
Referenced as the reason the case is treated differently ('when it comes to Epstein, things are always different').
|
| Female Defendant (Redacted) | Defendant |
Client of Jason Foy. Referred to as 'she', 'her'. Likely Tova Noel based on context of Montell Noel being the co-defe...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney's Office Southern District of New York |
Prosecuting authority; sender of the document.
|
|
| NYC BOP |
New York City Bureau of Prisons / MCC; mentioned regarding 'disfunction'.
|
|
| Inspector General |
Mentioned in comparison to a Texas case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-02-15
Conference call between defense counsel (Foy/Sarraga) and prosecutors (JL/NR/Nick) regarding the case against Epstein's guards.
Teleconference
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the case.
|
|
|
Location of a comparable case mentioned by defense.
|
Relationships (2)
JF speaking on behalf of 'her', mentioning 'your client'.
Referred to collectively as 'Ds' (Defendants); JL states 'Ds will each be analyzed separately'.
Key Quotes (5)
"have seen from discovery, that when it comes to Epstein, things are always different"Source
EFTA00022623.pdf
Quote #1
"understand that someone died, which makes it different"Source
EFTA00022623.pdf
Quote #2
"Ds can be viewed as differently situated"Source
EFTA00022623.pdf
Quote #3
"believe that she was 'not up to no good'"Source
EFTA00022623.pdf
Quote #4
"she can be held accountable without having a criminal record—people don't usually get fired for this, so being fired would be a way of holding her accountable"Source
EFTA00022623.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,084 characters)
From: [REDACTED]
Subject: 2021.02.15 - NOTES Call with Jason Foy & Eric Sarraga re [REDACTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:40:43 +0000
Subject: 2021.02.15 - NOTES Call with Jason Foy & Eric Sarraga re [REDACTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:40:43 +0000
2021.02.15 - NOTES Call with Jason Foy & Eric Sarraga re [REDACTED]
JL, NR, JF, ES
• NR: checking in re June trial date
• JF: would expect that court is going to adjourn this
• JL: understanding is that some trials will start up beginning in February, but limited number
• JF: suspect that this case will not take priority and will be adjourned; if the Court doesn't want to adjourn, will move forward in June
• JF: may find out more information at the March conference
• NR: had previously mentioned wanting to put in a DP application; has not been a standard DP/misdemeanor application process; if you are interested in making application, should make it sooner rather than later
• JF: got sense that likelihood of them changing their minds was remote—is that still the case?
• NR: pre-charge, you had mentioned misdemeanor (1018); have been some changes in leadership, there’s a currently a pandemic, could supply additional information about what your client has been doing, collateral consequences of felony conviction, life plans, even in last year
• JL: no predictions about the outcome, but here are some things to consider including: [REDACTED] life plans, how she spent the past year, her familial responsibilities, etc.; less need to address litigation risk, because we are aware of those issues, but can include; in terms of selective prosecution argument, can make it, but in a more informational tone, rather than an accusatory tone
• JF: not her formal position; goal was to put her in a position to cooperate and discuss disfunction at NYC BOP; no criminal intent on her part; now that reviewed discovery, do not believe that she should take a misdemeanor; believe that she was "not up to no good"; would recommend to her DP or trial; expect her to follow my lead, but she may compromise and accept misdemeanor; have found instances of similar conduct that haven't been prosecuted; understand that someone died, which makes it different; in case in Texas, COs weren't truthful to Inspector General; not the case here; no one tried to trick or do anything to frustrate anything; did not try to avoid what happened; said that they messed up in the moment; will not succeed if we (JL & NR) don't support it; have seen from discovery, that when it comes to Epstein, things are always different; did not really emphasize Epstein-related argument at last conversation; she can be held accountable without having a criminal record—people don't usually get fired for this, so being fired would be a way of holding her accountable
• JL: not previewing our position, but Nick and I have an open mind and will consider what you submit
• JF: my duty to submit something; think it's a defensible case, but if I can get her the right result without all the drama, should do that; will do my best to stay away from fighting the case; emphasize fairness and change of circumstance; how long is process?
• JL: explanation of DP process, including appeals
• JF: same people who were at last meeting?
• NR: some change in leadership
• JL: not sure if the standard process will be followed or if brass will be involved earlier given that brass previously considered DP in this case
• JF: this would be first formal DP application; prior meeting was about potential cooperation pre-charge
• JL: may want to drop a FN that this is first formal application and a different posture than last time
• JF: should discuss with Montell as well
• JL: we have had a similar conversation with Montell
• JF: Ds can be viewed as differently situated
• JL: at least at this point, Ds will each be analyzed separately
EFTA00022623
• JF: would expect that court is going to adjourn this
• JL: understanding is that some trials will start up beginning in February, but limited number
• JF: suspect that this case will not take priority and will be adjourned; if the Court doesn't want to adjourn, will move forward in June
• JF: may find out more information at the March conference
• NR: had previously mentioned wanting to put in a DP application; has not been a standard DP/misdemeanor application process; if you are interested in making application, should make it sooner rather than later
• JF: got sense that likelihood of them changing their minds was remote—is that still the case?
• NR: pre-charge, you had mentioned misdemeanor (1018); have been some changes in leadership, there’s a currently a pandemic, could supply additional information about what your client has been doing, collateral consequences of felony conviction, life plans, even in last year
• JL: no predictions about the outcome, but here are some things to consider including: [REDACTED] life plans, how she spent the past year, her familial responsibilities, etc.; less need to address litigation risk, because we are aware of those issues, but can include; in terms of selective prosecution argument, can make it, but in a more informational tone, rather than an accusatory tone
• JF: not her formal position; goal was to put her in a position to cooperate and discuss disfunction at NYC BOP; no criminal intent on her part; now that reviewed discovery, do not believe that she should take a misdemeanor; believe that she was "not up to no good"; would recommend to her DP or trial; expect her to follow my lead, but she may compromise and accept misdemeanor; have found instances of similar conduct that haven't been prosecuted; understand that someone died, which makes it different; in case in Texas, COs weren't truthful to Inspector General; not the case here; no one tried to trick or do anything to frustrate anything; did not try to avoid what happened; said that they messed up in the moment; will not succeed if we (JL & NR) don't support it; have seen from discovery, that when it comes to Epstein, things are always different; did not really emphasize Epstein-related argument at last conversation; she can be held accountable without having a criminal record—people don't usually get fired for this, so being fired would be a way of holding her accountable
• JL: not previewing our position, but Nick and I have an open mind and will consider what you submit
• JF: my duty to submit something; think it's a defensible case, but if I can get her the right result without all the drama, should do that; will do my best to stay away from fighting the case; emphasize fairness and change of circumstance; how long is process?
• JL: explanation of DP process, including appeals
• JF: same people who were at last meeting?
• NR: some change in leadership
• JL: not sure if the standard process will be followed or if brass will be involved earlier given that brass previously considered DP in this case
• JF: this would be first formal DP application; prior meeting was about potential cooperation pre-charge
• JL: may want to drop a FN that this is first formal application and a different posture than last time
• JF: should discuss with Montell as well
• JL: we have had a similar conversation with Montell
• JF: Ds can be viewed as differently situated
• JL: at least at this point, Ds will each be analyzed separately
EFTA00022623
• JF: can see how Ds’ interests diverge, given seniority and reality of who was doing and not doing what on day in question; include this?
• JL: should include anything that mitigates her conduct
• JL: should include anything that mitigates her conduct
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
EFTA00022624
United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
EFTA00022624
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document