DOJ-OGR-00004379.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 82 of 349 charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team, Sanchez followed up on the July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel: We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably vindicated.”° Sanchez added, “We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life.” The “significantly punitive” proposal described in the defense letter involved no period of mandatory incarceration. Instead, Sanchez suggested two years of home confinement, with regular reporting to and visits from a community control officer; payment of restitution, damages, court and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service; psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was “prepared to fully fund the identified group of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] — that is, the 12 individuals noted at the meeting on July 31, 2007.” Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody. Sanchez also advised that the defense team was seeking a meeting with Acosta. B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest Villafafia told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable, and she conferred with Lourie or Menchel about the government’s response. Villafafia drafted for Menchel’s signature a letter asserting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment to be the minimum sentence that would “vindicate” the federal interest in the Epstein investigation. Villafafia’s draft stated that the USAO “has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein,” but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Villafafia specified that Epstein would also be required to concede liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal investigation, “not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument.” 0 The USAO countered, however, that it “never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate” and that “a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer.” Records show that throughout the Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys’ conduct, OPR did not rely on uncorroborated defense assertions. 55 DOJ-OGR-00004379