DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
887 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Doj opr report / court filing exhibit
File Size:
887 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a DOJ OPR report (page 146 of the original report, filed in court in 2021 and 2023) detailing the justifications provided by USAO prosecutors (Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta) for entering into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein rather than pursuing a federal trial. The prosecutors cite significant evidentiary challenges, including unreliable witnesses, victims who 'loved' Epstein or would claim they lied about their age, and the trauma a trial would cause victims. Acosta admits his knowledge of the case facts was not 'granular' and that he relied on the diligence of his team, particularly Villafaña.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Described as the defendant; prosecutors weighed risk of trial vs. plea deal; mentioned as having witnesses who 'loved...
|
| Lourie | Prosecutor / USAO Staff |
Advocated for prosecution in emails but told OPR that the team had concerns about the viability of a federal prosecut...
|
| Menchel | Prosecutor / USAO Staff |
Experienced in prosecuting sexual assault; believed victims were unwilling to testify and that Epstein would go to tr...
|
| Sloman | Prosecutor / USAO Staff |
Recalled witness challenges and legal theory concerns; described unreliable witnesses and those who would claim they ...
|
| Alexander Acosta | US Attorney (former) |
Told OPR he relied on his team's diligence; admitted his understanding of facts was not 'granular'; discussed case st...
|
| Villafaña | Prosecutor / USAO Staff |
identified as the team member who had the most detailed understanding of the facts.
|
| FBI co-case agent | Investigator |
Corroborated testimony regarding witness challenges and safety concerns during OPR interview.
|
Organizations (4)
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (2)
Acosta referred to them as his 'team' and relied on their diligence; discussed facts with them.
Described as having a more detailed understanding of the facts than the others.
Key Quotes (5)
"everybody at the USAO working on the matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal prosecution of Epstein"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
Quote #1
"[I]t seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to be severely impeached."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
Quote #2
"People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who thought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I was 18 years old."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
Quote #3
"Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims’ general credibility and reluctance to testify"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
Quote #4
"his understanding of the facts was not “granular” and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim’s expected testimony"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021346.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,224 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page174 of 258
SA-172
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 172 of 348
SA-172
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 172 of 348
record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of
the names of certain victims that didn’t want their names revealed
and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their
families.
the names of certain victims that didn’t want their names revealed
and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their
families.
Although his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein,
Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that “everybody at the USAO working on the
matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal
prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the
cooperation and desires of the victims.”
Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that “everybody at the USAO working on the
matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal
prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the
cooperation and desires of the victims.”
Similarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes—recalled
understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced
additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein.
Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein,
Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel’s view, the USAO therefore had to weigh
the risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained
through a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual
offender, and made restitution to his victims.
understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced
additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein.
Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein,
Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel’s view, the USAO therefore had to weigh
the risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gained
through a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexual
offender, and made restitution to his victims.
Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the
government’s legal theories. He told OPR:
government’s legal theories. He told OPR:
[I]t seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going to
be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to
be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who
thought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I
was 18 years old.
be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to
be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who
thought he was a Svengali . . . who were going to say I told him I
was 18 years old.
You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light
being shown on them because their parents didn’t even know -- had
very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns.
being shown on them because their parents didn’t even know -- had
very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns.
Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims’
general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which
factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not
“granular” and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim’s expected testimony,
but he trusted that his “team” had already “done the diligence necessary” to make
recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts
with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding
of the facts as Villafaña. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta’s statement that he reasonably
believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose
significant evidentiary challenges.
general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which
factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not
“granular” and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim’s expected testimony,
but he trusted that his “team” had already “done the diligence necessary” to make
recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts
with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding
of the facts as Villafaña. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta’s statement that he reasonably
believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose
significant evidentiary challenges.
Other witnesses corroborated the subjects’ testimony regarding witness challenges,
including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims
had expressed concern for their safety and “a lot of them d[id]n’t want to take the stand, and
including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims
had expressed concern for their safety and “a lot of them d[id]n’t want to take the stand, and
146
DOJ-OGR-00021346
DOJ-OGR-00021346
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document