HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012177.jpg

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Agreement to Defer Prosecution to the State, an agreement without precedent and fraught with substantial practical and legal hurdles to its implementation. 6. THE SDFL DID NOT DEFER TO THE STATE. Sloman’s Letter: e “{TJhe SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration.” Id., p. 2. The Truth: * The SDFL neither deferred to the State, nor even discussed with. the State, the length of Mr. Epstein’s incarceration. In a letter to the defense, Criminal Division Chief, Matthew Menchel rejected the sentence contemplated by the State’s plea agreement, writing that “the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment.” See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email from M. Menchel. Of course, this position is contrary to Section 9-2031D of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (indicating that the “result” of a state prosecution is “presume/d]” to have vindicated the federal interest). It is understandable, therefore, that Mr. Sloman might want to retreat from it now. Indeed, the final Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) restricts the state-court judge from exercising any of his rightful discretion and to specifically prohibit the judge from offering probation, community control or any other alternative in lieu of incarceration. DPA, f 2(a). 7. SUGGESTION OF ADDITIONAL STATE PLEA Mr. Sloman’s Letter: e The parties considered: “as suggested by [the defense], a plea to state charges encompassing Epstein’s conduct.” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p.2, q2. The Truth: ¢ It was the government, and not the defense, that suggested a plea to state charges to resolve the federal investigation. Andrew Lourie proposed declining prosecution in favor of the state. Although Mr. Epstein and the State Attorney’s Office had already reached a plea agreement, in August 2007, Mr. Sloman and AUSA Marie Villafana warned that they intended to prosecute Epstein federally unless his counsel (i.e., not the U.S. Attorney’s Office) sought more stringent conditions to the State’s proposed plea agreement. These stringent conditions included, among other things, the two-year prison term demanded by Mr. Menchel (discussed above) and a charge requiring him to register as a sex offender. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012177