USAM
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00023159.tif
This document outlines guidelines from the USAM (§ 9-27.220, § 9-27.230, § 9-27.240) for federal prosecutors on making decisions to commence or decline prosecution. It details factors to consider, such as federal law enforcement priorities, the nature of the offense, the deterrent effect, the offender's culpability, criminal history, willingness to cooperate, and probable sentence, as well as considerations when deferring to prosecution in another jurisdiction. Footnotes provide additional context on federal prosecutorial priorities and the impact of an offense on the victim, cautioning against the perception that restitution alone can prevent prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021336.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzes the decision by former U.S. Attorney Acosta to use a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that Acosta did not commit misconduct, as there was no clear and unambiguous statute or policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) that prohibited the use of an NPA in circumstances like Epstein's, where it was not in exchange for cooperation. The document affirms the broad discretion prosecutors hold in making such decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021335.jpg
This document is page 135 (SA-161) of a legal report or filing (likely a DOJ OGR review) analyzing the conduct of U.S. Attorney Acosta in the Jeffrey Epstein case. It argues that Acosta's decision to decline federal prosecution and enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) fell within the broad discretion granted to U.S. Attorneys and did not constitute professional misconduct, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) and Supreme Court precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00021323.jpg
This document page (p. 123 of a DOJ report, likely the OPR review of the Epstein case) details the 'Petite policy' regarding dual federal-state prosecutions and USAM provisions for plea agreements. It outlines exceptions where federal prosecution can proceed after a state case—specifically citing incompetence, corruption, or intimidation—and mandates that plea agreements must honestly reflect the seriousness of a defendant's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021321.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the guidelines from the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) for federal prosecutors. It specifies the conditions under which a prosecutor should commence or decline prosecution, listing seven key factors to consider when determining if a substantial federal interest is served. The document also addresses deferring to state prosecution and evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in other jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021240.jpg
This legal document details a disagreement between prosecutors Menchel and Villafaña in July 2007 regarding a proposed state plea deal to resolve a federal investigation into Epstein. Menchel, asserting the decision was ultimately made by Alex Acosta, defended the state plea, while Villafaña argued it was contrary to Department of Justice policy, did not reflect the gravity of the offense, and went against the wishes of victims she had consulted.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity