DOJ-OGR-00004374.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 77 of 349 Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case.*! Sloman added that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by Acosta following “extended consideration, research, and discussion,” among Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and Villafafia. *” Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR, however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges, Epstein would have felt he had “nothing to lose” and “undoubtedly” would have chosen to take the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial, and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years “as a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything,” and “if we . . . felt we could have gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial.” Acosta told OPR that “I had decided and endorsed” the two-year resolution “at some point,” and that it resulted from “back and forth” discussion “over the course of some days or a week or two.” As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO’s role in this case merely as a “backstop” to the state’s prosecution, which he explained to OPR was “‘a polite way of saying[, ‘Jencouraging the state to do a little bit more.[’]”*? Acosta said that he understood two years’ imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation.*4 Acosta also told OPR that he the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government should . . . endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which the sentencing decisions will be based. al In Sloman’s view, Menchel and Lourie were “two of the finest trial lawyers” in the USAO. a Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were “two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta’s] front office who had tried . . . gobs and gobs of cases.” 83 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney asserted that OPR’s use of Acosta’s quote, “a little bit more,” “unfairly minimized” Acosta’s and the USAO’s efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta’s attorney also asserted that the phrase was “clearly soft-spoken understatement,” that the terms obtained were “substantially more onerous than the state’s alternative resolution,” and that Acosta was “clearly declining the invitation to take the State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction.” 84 OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in 50 DOJ-OGR-00004374