DOJ-OGR-00021420.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page248 of 258
SA-246
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 246 of 348

decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst
many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision
making.324

Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the
defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications
to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to
notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because
the Attorney General Guidelines defined “crime victim” as a person harmed as a result of an
offense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court.
Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, “[W]e do not
object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged
victims.” Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice
sent by the USAO, and that “any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses
should be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO],” and he agreed that the USAO
“should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those
victims and the state proceedings.”

Months later, in April 2008, Epstein’s attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that
Sloman and Villafaña committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a “highly
improper and unusual ‘victim notification letter’ to all” victims.

F. January – June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department
in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating
Epstein

As described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through
the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely,
implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel’s advocacy resulted in the USAO’s
decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first
by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then, briefly, by an experienced CEOS trial
attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS
Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal
Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein’s entry of his state guilty plea.

As set forth below, during that time, Villafaña and the FBI continued investigating and
working toward potential federal charges.

1. Villafaña Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein
Will Breach the NPA

On January 3, 2008, the local newspaper reported that Epstein’s plea conference in state
court, at that point set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he
would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution, and that “in exchange” for the guilty plea,

324 The 2000 Guidelines were superseded by the 2005 Guidelines.
220
DOJ-OGR-00021420