DOJ-OGR-00021262.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page90 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 88 of 348 Villafafia added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would report that Epstein was “going to plead to a state charge” and the PBPD Chief “wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.” Sloman forwarded Villafafia’s email to Acosta with a note that read simply, “fyi.” Later that evening, Villafafia circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA.'” The draft federal plea agreement, following the USAO’s standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The draft NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafafia told OPR that because she had never seen a non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the Department’s internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the use of non-prosecution agreements. !°! 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafafia, Villafafia’s co-counsel, Oosterbaan, and one or two supervisory FBI agents met at the USAO’s West Palm Beach office with defense attorneys Sanchez and, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz.°? This was Acosta’s first meeting with Epstein’s defense team. Villafafia understood the purpose of this meeting was to afford Epstein’s counsel an opportunity to “make a pitch” as to why the case should not be prosecuted federally. Villafafia recalled that at a “pre-meet” before defense counsel arrived, Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case. Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not “a negotiation,” but a chance for the defense to present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafafia similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case should remain a state matter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafafia and her co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held Senate-confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were “the only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate.” Acosta did not recall the comment, but he told OPR, “[B]ack in July, we had decided that we were going Chapter Three, the Department’s position at the time was that victim consultation was not required in matters in which the government did not pursue a federal charge. The USAO’s actions with respect to victim consultation and the Department’s interpretation of the CVRA are discussed in detail in Chapter Three of this Report. 100 The initial draft NPA is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report. ia) OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied. 102 Lourie was not present. During September 2007, he was traveling between Florida and Washington, D.C., as he transitioned to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head of the Department’s Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. He served in that detail until he left the Department in February 2008. 62 DOJ-OGR-00021262