DOJ-OGR-00021394.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ON 350 3536038, Page222 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 220 of 348 information about available services for victims. Therefore, even though [the Department] may not afford CVRA rights to victims if charges have not been filed in their cases, the [D]Jepartment may provide certain services to victims that may serve the same function as some CVRA rights.””° The 2005 Guidelines stated that the “prosecution stage” of the case began when “charges are filed and continue[d] through postsentencing legal proceedings.” The “U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending” was responsible for making “best efforts to see that crime victims are notified” of their rights under the CVRA. During the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attorney, or a designee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an offender; the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or rendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to “provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding . . . that involves the crime against the victim.” The 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to “be available to consult with victims about [their] major case decisions,” such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims’ views about, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to “consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the victim’s] views” in light of various factors such as “[w]hether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions” and “[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Lastly, the 2005 Guidelines stated that “[a] strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime.” The “corrections stage” involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration following a conviction. Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant, the U.S. Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage. IV. USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION A. USAO Training As US. Attorney, Acosta disseminated the May 2005 updated Guidelines to USAO personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February 27, 2006, stating that he expected each recipient “to read and become familiar with the [2005] Guidelines.” Acosta noted in the memorandum that the USAO had recently held an “all office training” addressing the 2005 Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view a videotaped version of the training “immediately.” Acosta further noted that the USAO’s 220 GAO CVRA Awareness Report at 66. 194 DOJ-OGR- 00021394