DOJ-OGR-00021409.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, A935 3536038, Page237 of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 235 of 348 During this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to meet or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me. My understanding of the agents’ explanation was that the federal investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein. In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to Villafafia in an email: Jane Doe #14 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic] jail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much needed [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for pursuing justice and not giving up.°° The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and expressed “a sense of relief.” Counsel for “Jane Doe #13” told OPR that while his client recalled meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about Epstein’s guilty plea. Ina letter to OPR, “Jane Doe #14’s” attorney stated that although her client recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea. After meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims’ knowledge of the NPA’s monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.° The case agent explained to OPR that she became “uncomfortable” talking to the victims about the damages provision, and that as the lead investigator, “if we did end up going to trial... . [if] Mr. Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand” testifying that “I told every one of these girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn’t think it was right.” Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, “[T]hat’s why we went back to Marie [Villafafia] and said we’re not comfortable now putting this out there... because. . . it’s likely that [the case agent] and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial, and this could be a problem.” Villafafia told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of “offering a bribe 208 The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports, because “it wasn’t an interview of them, it was a notification. ... [I]f there was something ... relevant [that] came up pertaining to the investigation, or something that I thought was noteworthy . . . I might have [recorded it in an interview report].” 304 Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness through evidence of bias, which may include the witness having received money, or expecting to receive money, from the government, the defendant, or other sources as a result of the witness’s allegations or testimony. 209 DOJ-OGR-00021409