DOJ-OGR-00021386.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, N12 3536038, Page214 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 212 of 348 parties.*°> The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification for the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO’s refusal to agree to that term would have itself caused the negotiations to fail; the USAO’s rejection of the defense proposal concerning immigration consequences did not affect Epstein’s willingness to sign the agreement. The possibility that individuals other than Epstein’s four female assistants could have criminal culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused. more careful consideration of the provision. Similarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration of the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of the investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO’s ability to disclose or release information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special master. Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province of the USAO to decide as it saw fit. There is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given case; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs. And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical decision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time. This case, however, was different from the norm, and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the usual plea agreement. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be handled like any other, but Acosta’s decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case unlike any other, and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight. Acosta may well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing #08 CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was “very unusual.” Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth commented, “I don’t know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who’s not identified. I just don’t know how that works.” Villafafia’s co-counsel told OPR: [I]t’s effectively transactional immunity which I didn’t think we were supposed to do at the Department of Justice. ... I’ve never heard of anything of the sort... . . [W]e go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for example, for crimes of violence, . . . for anything beyond the specific offense which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and nobody else. I mean on rare occasion I’ve seen cases where say someone was dealing drugs and their wife was involved. ... And they’ve got kids. . . . [and] it’s understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too, but you know the husband’s willing to go and take the weight .... This is not one of those. Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision “pretty weird.” Menchel’s successor as Criminal Chief told OPR that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of experience as a prosecutor. A senior AUSA with substantial experience prosecuting sex crimes against children commented that it was “horrendous” to provide immunity for participants in such conduct. 186 DOJ-OGR-00021386