DOJ-OGR-00004462.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 165 of 349 Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant’s criminal conduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM §§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400 (comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important exception: a U.S. Attorney or a “designated supervisory attorney” may authorize a plea that does not comport with this policy.2°? Moreover, the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not “readily provable” if the prosecutor harbors “a good faith doubt,” based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government’s ability to prove the charge at trial. By its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the “most serious readily provable charge” requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafafia proposed charging Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors, and Epstein’s sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. The original “term sheet” presented to the defense proposed a “non- negotiable” requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original state indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration. Instead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state indictment and only one additional state offense, and an 18-month sentence. As discussed more fully later in this Report, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafafia outlined in the prosecution memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which a federal prosecution would be premised. On the other hand, Villafafia felt strongly that federal charges should be brought, and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice opined that the charges were appropriate. OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable, however, because Acosta had 202 In addition to specified “Limited Exceptions,” this authorization is available in “Other Exceptional Circumstances,” as follows: Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney. This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the federal criminal justice system. For example, a case-specific approval to dismiss charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney’s Office is particularly over-burdened, the duration of the trial would be exceptionally long, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases disposed of by the office. However, such case-by-case exceptions should be rare; otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be jeopardized. Ashcroft Memo at § I.B.6. See also USAM 8§ 9-2.001 and 27.140 (U.S. Attorneys’ authority to depart from the USAM). 138 DOJ-OGR-00004462