DOJ-OGR-00003233.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5/7 of 348 we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don’t apply.”*” Lourie told Menchel, “I don’t see the downside,” but added, “Marie is against it.’ Menchel responded that it was “premature” to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically recall why he believed it was “premature” to provide the defense with the requested information, but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution. On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to “confirm” that Epstein’s attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but noted that Epstein’s defense team was “really ready for the next level,” rather than another meeting with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding, “Whether Alex would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call.” Lourie also emailed Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein’s counsel before filing charges, and suggesting that Epstein’s counsel make their next presentation to Menchel. Although Lourie’s emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers meeting with defense counsel, Villafafia opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafafia on the afternoon of May 23, 2007.8 On that same date, Villafafia drafted an email, which she planned to send to Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although the email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafafia sent it as a draft only to her immediate supervisor, seeking her “guidance and counsel” as to how to proceed. Hi Jeff and Matt — I just want to again voice my disagreement with promising to have a meeting or having a meeting with Lefcourt or any other of Epstein’s attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case where we will be sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case differently. Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed at the last meeting, and I am concerned that more will be disclosed at a future meeting. My co-chair . . . who has prosecuted more of these cases than the rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of some of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. We have been accused of not being “strategic thinkers” because of our ae Dershowitz had jomed Lefcourt and Sanchez in representing Epstein for the federal case. 48 During her OPR interview, Villafafia could not recall the meeting with specificity, but believed the purpose was to discuss whether the USAO should agree to additional meetings with Epstein’s counsel. Menchel, similarly, told OPR that he could not remember anything specific about the meeting. 31 DOJ-OGR-00003233