DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
76.7 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
10
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Report/analysis
File Size:
76.7 KB
Summary
This document analyzes R. Alexander Acosta's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, critiquing his use and interpretation of the Petite policy. It details Acosta's reasoning for federal non-intervention, his view on the state's role, and his concessions during an OPR interview that the outcome was not an appropriate punishment. The text also references the Ashcroft Memo and mentions an estimated sentencing range for Epstein by Villafaña.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| R. Alexander Acosta | U.S. Attorney |
Mentioned as having authority, made decisions regarding Epstein's prosecution, interviewed by OPR, wrote a letter ref...
|
| Epstein | Subject of prosecution |
His prosecution by the state, potential incarceration, registration as a sexual offender, investigation details, and ...
|
| Villafaña | Estimator |
Estimated the applicable sentencing guidelines range for Epstein.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility, interviewed Acosta regarding his decisions.
|
|
| USAO |
U.S. Attorney's Office, intervention mentioned in relation to state prosecution.
|
|
| PBPD |
Presumably a police department, mentioned as not bringing Epstein to the FBI's attention.
|
|
| FBI |
Federal Bureau of Investigation, mentioned as a potential originator of the investigation.
|
|
| The Daily Beast |
Online publication where Acosta's letter was published.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Acosta's decision to employ Petite policy analysis in Epstein's case, aiming to avert a 'manifest injustice' by requiring the state to do more.
OPR interview of Acosta regarding his decisions in the Epstein case, where Acosta conceded the NPA did not represent 'appropriate punishment' or 'best outcome'.
Relationships (3)
Acosta made decisions regarding Epstein's prosecution and incarceration.
Acosta was interviewed by OPR regarding his handling of the Epstein case.
Key Quotes (10)
"[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind . . . the whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state . . . is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except in the most unusual of circumstances."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #1
""absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #2
""the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "back-stop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #3
"USAO could avert a “manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #4
""miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #5
"there are any number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state charges are substantially less and different, and . . . the federal government stands aside and lets the state proceed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #6
""the best sentence.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #7
""the most serious readily provable offense""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #8
""the state to do a little bit more""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #9
"an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system,""Source
DOJ-OGR-00023210.tif
Quote #10
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,700 characters)
[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so
here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign
state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind
whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state
is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except
in the most unusual of circumstances.
the
Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein
would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In
Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "back-
stop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."247 Acosta told OPR
that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State
Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that
the USAO could avert a “manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein
to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender.
here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign
state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind
whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state
is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except
in the most unusual of circumstances.
the
Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein
would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In
Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "back-
stop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."247 Acosta told OPR
that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State
Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that
the USAO could avert a “manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein
to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender.
Acosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a
"miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used
in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with
a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires
similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state
prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite
policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal
government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials
involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions
regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any
number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state
charges are substantially less and different, and . . . the federal government
stands aside and
lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a
prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in
a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told
OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators,
typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence."
"miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used
in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with
a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires
similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state
prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite
policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal
government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials
involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions
regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any
number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state
charges are substantially less and different, and . . . the federal government
stands aside and
lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a
prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in
a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told
OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators,
typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence."
Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. 248
Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily
provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach
that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent
an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system,"
and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from
the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to
Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily
provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach
that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent
an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system,"
and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from
the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to
247
Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
Daily Beast.
Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
Daily Beast.
248
Villafaña estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment.
Villafaña estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment.
172
DOJ-OGR-00023210
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document