DOJ-OGR-00003408.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 232 of 348 disagreement” regarding the CVRA’s requirements.””> Oosterbaan’s disagreement was based on policy considerations, and he told OPR that “from a policy perspective,” CEOS would not “take a position that you wouldn’t consult with [the victims].” Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity “to weigh in directly,” but he did not fault the USAO’s motivations for failing to provide that opportunity: The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], . . . were trying to do the right thing. . . . [T]hey weren’t acting unethically. I just disagree with the outcome .. . but the point is they weren’t trying ... to do anything improper . . . it was more of this question of .. . you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on this and maybe it doesn’t sway you. You still do what you’re going to do but .. . it’s hard to say it was a complete, completely clean exercise of . . . prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn’t really know what [the victims] would say. Sloman told OPR, “I don’t think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point in terms of notifying victims. . . . | was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the victims.” VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 — JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafafia and the case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation. However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be given to the victims in light of the NPA’s nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein’s defense counsel regarding victim notifications.?”° As a result, although the expectation in the USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision, and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys, who strongly objected to the government’s notification plan. In addition, Villafafia and the case agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision would damage the victims’ credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney’s discretion whether to notify the victims about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not provided to victims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008. na Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospect, “maybe I should have been more aggressive with how . . . I dealt with [the USAOQ].” 296 The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.” 206 DOJ-OGR- 00003408