DOJ-OGR-00023201.tif

sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement a breach of the NPA and would “proceed accordingly.” The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates of the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months’ incarceration. Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County Stockade. Moreover, Villafafia received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement “in custody.” Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole authority for administering the work release program. After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta’s October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OPR found nothing in the record to suggest that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served pursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials’ decision to permit him to participate in work release. F. Villafafia’s Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafafia, or Other Subjects, Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or Other Improper Influences During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein’s attorney, and filed under seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafafia (and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized, and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz’s side of the communications, and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafafia’s communications to Lefkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over Epstein’s objections.7*° Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafafia’s emails as proof that Villafafia and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein’s attorneys to keep the “sweetheart” deal a secret from the victims and the public. Statements in several emails in particular were cited as evidence of the USAO’s improper favoritism towards Epstein. In one example, Villafafia told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing not to prosecute others, but would “prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge.” She also offered to meet with him “‘off campus to finalize negotiations. She also proposed, “[o]n an ‘avoid the press’ note,” that filing federal charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press coverage. 3999 236 The USAO did not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal protected information. United States’ Response to Petitioners’ Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the [CVRA] and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (Apr. 7, 2011). The court declined to order the additional redactions. 163 DOJ-OGR- 00023201