DOJ-OGR-00003265.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 89 of 348 forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment. The September meeting did not alter or shift our position.” ! Villafafia told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported that the meeting was “non-eventful,” noting that defense counsel argued “federalism” and might approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument directly to her. VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel’s August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and although Villafafia continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was established, and the negotiations continued through most of September. The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means through which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that a two-year term of imprisonment was “the minimum” that the USAO would accept. To reach an agreement with the defense on Epstein’s sentence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either federal or state court, or both, and Villafafia spent considerable time and effort working with defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with the understanding that under the state’s sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15 months. A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had not been present at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer, proposing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafafia emailed Sloman, identifying issues she wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender registration. Villafafia stated that Lefcourt’s counteroffer was “a reasonable counteroffer in light of our starting position of 24 months,” but added that it was “a really low sentence.” Villafafia 103 Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Starr’s presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path. 63 DOJ-OGR-00003265