DOJ-OGR-00023266.tif

camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted images that could contain child pornography.**” By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department’s Criminal Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafafia and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein were “more and more likely.” Villafafia asked Oosterbaan for help to “move this [Criminal Division review] process along,” noting that the defense continued to undermine the government’s case by deposing the victims “under the guise of ‘trial prep’ for the state case” and that the “agents and the victims” were “losing their patience.” On April 24, 2008, Villafafia emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior asking whether she had the “green light” to file charges and raising the same concerns she had expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafafia further cautioned that, although she was planning to file charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, “then we all need to meet with the victims, the agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an explanation for the delay.” Because the Department’s Criminal Division did not conclude its review of Epstein’s appeal by May 6, however, Villafafia did not file charges that day. Vill. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict between the Department’s position that CVRA’s victims’ rights attached upon the filing of a criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department’s policy regarding the issue. Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA guaranteed him “an absolute right to meet” with USAO officials because he believed that he was the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, “our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed.” On April 24, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had “confirmed with DOJ that [her] reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not triggered until a case is filed.”34° On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, Jn re Dean, holding that a victim’s 342 The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards. 343 The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the initiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department’s statutory obligations to the victim. 228 DOJ-OGR- 00023266