DOJ-OGR-00004609.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 312 of 349

principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.

OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
misconduct with respect to the government’s interactions with victims. The subjects did not
intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into
the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation
without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department
did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the
federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before
criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation
was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series
of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of
the government’s treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is
contradictory to the Department’s mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims
of a crime endure.

OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
certain victims after the NPA was signed that described the case as “under investigation” and that
failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
Moreover, the statement that the matter was “under investigation” was not false because the
government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
responsible for communicating with Epstein’s victims and showed a lack of attention to and
oversight regarding communication with victims.

After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
whether to notify victims about the state’s plea hearing pursuant to the state’s own victim’s rights
requirements. Although Acosta’s decision was within his authority and did not constitute
professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.

285

DOJ-OGR-00004609