DOJ-OGR-00023308.tif

the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein’s conduct. Absent information from the USAO, the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised by Villafafia that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims, presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing. Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein’s plea that the victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta also told OPR that he expected the state would have “notified [the victims] that that was an all- encompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding.” There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman or Villafafia, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafafia to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney or to provide the State Attorney’s Office with a complete list of victims identified during the federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney’s Office that Villafafia prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly released from the State Attorney’s Office.*’4 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and Villafafia interacted with the State Attorney’s Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008 plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that office, and Villafafia’s last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney’s Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to appear at the hearing. Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to tell them about Epstein’s plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate. In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein’s crimes, both federal and state, “would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing.” OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the plea hearing, and Acosta’s assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources, and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware—through the prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafafia—that the USAO’s investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD 424 The text of the letter indicated that Epstein’s attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of “any rights they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office” and that the USAO was providing the State Attorney’s Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims “in case you are required to provide them with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law.” 270 DOJ-OGR- 00023308