["OPR"]
PersonRelationship Network
Villafaña's belief in the case
Sloman told OPR that Villafaña 'always believed in the case' against Epstein.
Concerns about case handling
Villafaña told OPR about her interactions with Menchel and her feeling that she could not raise her concerns with superiors.
Interaction with Villafaña
Menchel told OPR his side of the story regarding his email to Villafaña, denying he 'ordered' her to do anything and explaining the context.
Justification for plea agreement term
Villafaña explained to OPR that she held the view that a certain paragraph didn't hurt the prosecution's case because 'Alex and people above me' had already decided against getting the computer equipment.
Non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators
Lourie told OPR the provision was 'unusual' and posited it might have been a message to victims who were also recruiters that they would not be charged.
Non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators
Acosta told OPR he did not recall discussions about the provision but that his focus would have been on Epstein facing consequences, not lesser-involved individuals. He assumed Villafaña and Lourie had approved it.
Non-prosecution provision for co-conspirators
Sloman, who was not involved in negotiations, told OPR that in retrospect he understood the provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants.
Justification for statements to victims
Villafaña explained to OPR that her statement to victims that the case was 'back under investigation' was accurate from her perspective, as she was actively working on building a federal indictment.
Decision-making in the Epstein case
Acosta acknowledged to OPR that his attempt to use the NPA to backstop the state prosecution was arguably more intrusive than a direct federal prosecution.
Concerns about the Epstein NPA
Villafaña told OPR she was concerned about the NPA because the USAO was giving up control, and that defense counsel had experience with the state system while the federal prosecutors did not.
Concern about Departmental direction
Acosta told OPR his concern was not about scrutiny of the NPA, but that the Department might direct the USAO to drop the case.
Importance of computer evidence
Villafaña told OPR that the defense's efforts to delay litigation over the computers was evidence of their importance and that they contained evidence that would have 'put this case completely to bed'.
Defense resistance to turning over computer
Menchel told OPR that 'there could be a lot of reasons why' defense counsel would resist turning over an entire computer.
Recollection of discussions regarding victim notification
Menchel wrote to OPR stating he had no recollection of any discussions or decisions about whether the USAO should notify victims in the Epstein matter.
Instruction not to speak to victims
Villafaña was interviewed by OPR, where she claimed she was instructed not to speak to victims during plea negotiations.
Justification for not pursuing federal prosecution of Eps...
Acosta explained his reasoning to OPR for not intervening in the state prosecution of Epstein, citing the Petite policy, the distinction between state and federal crimes, and concern for the victims.
State Attorney's Office actions
Footnote 62 indicates Menchel told OPR his understanding of the State Attorney's Office's actions regarding the Epstein case.
Prevalence of Rule 11(c) pleas
Villafaña told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida because judges dislike being told what sentence to impose, and that she had never offered such a plea.
Rationale for handling the Epstein case
Acosta explained to OPR his reasoning for deferring to the state, citing the unusual nature of federal involvement in solicitation cases, federalism principles, and viewing the USAO's role as a 'backstop' to the state's prosecution.
Villafaña's role in the case
Acosta told OPR that Villafaña was not 'frozen out' and he would have met with her if asked directly.
OPR's draft report on Acosta's handling of the Epstein case
In a footnote, it is mentioned that Acosta's attorney commented on OPR's draft report, objecting to its conclusions about Acosta's knowledge and responsibilities regarding the investigation.
Handling of the Epstein case
Krischer told OPR about Dershowitz's threats and explained the rationale for taking the case to a grand jury, citing the complexity and the risk of victims being prosecuted for prostitution.
Handling of the Epstein case
Belohlavek told OPR that her office took the allegations seriously, viewing it as an organized scheme, but noted she was limited by state statutes on what she could charge.
Handling of Epstein's NPA
Acosta explained to OPR his rationale for allowing Departmental review of Epstein's concerns and his frustration with the defense's collateral attacks.
Handling of Epstein's NPA
Sloman described Acosta as process-oriented and believed the USAO gave Epstein 'too much process'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity