DOJ-OGR-00021224.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page52 of 258
SA-50
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 50 of 348

disagreed with her position. Villafaña and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel. They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views.35 According to Villafaña, Lourie believed that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO’s chance to learn the defense’s legal theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafaña told OPR, however, that while this strategy might make sense in a white-collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to the conduct. Villafaña also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended to charge, which Villafaña did not want to reveal.

6. February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafaña and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case

At the February 1, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafaña, Sanchez and Lefcourt set out arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along with documents the defense had obtained from the state’s investigative file and potential impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims.

In the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (1) the allegations did not provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that Epstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evidence existed proving that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the Petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the state; and (5) there were “forensic barriers” to prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues. The letter suggested that “misleading and inaccurate reports” from the PBPD “may well have affected” the USAO’s view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney’s Office had taken into account the “damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime” of the state’s two principal victims (identified by name in the letter), and argued that “with witnesses of their ilk,” the state might have been unable “to make any case against Epstein at all.” Lourie told OPR that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafaña told OPR that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded by the defense presentation at this “listening session.”

B. February – May 2007: Villafaña and the FBI Continue to Investigate; Villafaña Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for USAO Managers to Review

Correspondence between Villafaña and defense counsel show that Villafaña carefully considered the defense arguments concerning the victims’ credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes

35 Villafaña told OPR that in a “heated conversation” on the subject, Lourie told them they were not being “strategic thinkers.” Her fellow AUSA remembered Lourie’s “strategic thinker” comment as well, but recalled it as having occurred later in connection with another proposed action in the Epstein case. Lourie did not recall making the statement but acknowledged that he could have.

24
DOJ-OGR-00021224