DOJ-OGR-00003474.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 298 of 348 argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the victim notification task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the victims of the hearing.*”* Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim notification had been elevated from a rote administrative task to a major area of dispute with the defense. Acosta personally involved himself by resolving the notification dispute with defense counsel in his December 19, 2007 letter. Villafafia provided Acosta with a draft letter to state officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the State Attorney’s Office or that he provided Villafafia and Sloman with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19, 2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the state process. Many victims only learned of Epstein’s state court pleas when they later received a letter from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end, although Villafafia and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases.” Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action. OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be. Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe the CVRA required it, to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein’s conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been consistent with the Department’s overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity, and sensitivity. Acosta’s failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the 428 As noted, in his comments on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s counsel strongly objected to OPR’s finding of poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR “unwarrantedly applies a standard never before expected of any US Attorney,” and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for “not personally confirming that the State Attorney had the information needed” to notify the victims and for “not personally confirming” that Chief Reiter had actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issue is not whether Acosta “personally” took certain specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen. 429 OPR notes that Villafafia contacted Reiter soon after the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulting window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorney at some point in time closer to Acosta’s December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and that issues concerning the victims’ appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities. Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the months that the matter was under review by the Department. 272 DOJ-OGR-00003474