Acosta

location 146 mentions 60% confidence

Also known as: ACOSTA

Document Mentions (146)

Document	Volume	Page	Context
059.pdf	-	61	e Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered thi...
059.pdf	-	67	carceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstei...
059.pdf	-	76	.......................................................... 163 G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafana Agreed to the NPA'...
059.pdf	-	100	who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey." Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta. 19
059.pdf	-	106	r even the U.S. Attorney. Accordingly, Villafana drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloma...
059.pdf	-	110	day. Menchel responded that "[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow," and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at...
059.pdf	-	119	. Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 migh...
059.pdf	-	124	o what concerns they were referring. In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney noted that Acosta's concerns were "the possibility that br...
059.pdf	-	126	t she requested. She viewed Menchel' s message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she r...
059.pdf	-	129	rse of action to take on the case. On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the US...
059.pdf	-	132	ed the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "[T]his was, rightly or wrongly,...
059.pdf	-	137	ic state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the...
059.pdf	-	143	uld not interfere. Both Villafana and her co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held Senate-con...
059.pdf	-	147	ied in principle with the agreement." 109 The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafana sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other superviso...
059.pdf	-	155	anted to have an appearance of having sort of an arm's length from the deal." 119 Villafana replied to Acosta's 119 As noted throughout the Report, Vi...
059.pdf	-	160	ll be prepared to sign as soon as today." From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who replied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Working...
059.pdf	-	165	g. On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafana circulated the new "final" version of the NP A to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, ...
059.pdf	-	166	nly with the PBPD Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein. 129 Villafana forwarded to Acosta, Lourie, and the West Palm Beach manager...
059.pdf	-	169	aster and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a "follow up to our conversation yes...
059.pdf	-	171	aw would likely be a litigious selection process." 139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than two weeks after the breakfast...
059.pdf	-	172	fying "areas of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what...
059.pdf	-	178	ach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Atto...
059.pdf	-	180	n expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date." Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previous...
059.pdf	-	181	A breached by the defense delays. 157 Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised "several troubling ques...
059.pdf	-	188	had concluded that "federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate" and that Acosta "could properly use his discretion to aut...
059.pdf	-	191	a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case. Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached "the end...
059.pdf	-	194	e was made weeks after the NP A was signed, when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, "so long as Mr. Epstein's sentenc...
059.pdf	-	197	ach County Sheriffs Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta "recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve...
059.pdf	-	215	tionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authorit...
059.pdf	-	217	d necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below, OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated o...
059.pdf	-	218	stants who were foreign nationals. After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal invest...
059.pdf	-	222	ssues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Aco...
059.pdf	-	225	the victims, Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta, or any of their colleagues, was motivat...
059.pdf	-	229	n to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. According to Acosta, "In 2006, it would have been extremely ...
059.pdf	-	230	es OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 te...
059.pdf	-	231	fana nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended ...
059.pdf	-	240	USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafana me...
059.pdf	-	243	evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, dis...
059.pdf	-	247	sm or other improper influences, or sought to silence victims. G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafana Agreed to the NPA'...
059.pdf	-	249	ployees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafana agreed to the non-...
059.pdf	-	253	pstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in ...
059.pdf	-	256	state's handling of the matter. 251 In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta "accept[ed] OPR's conclusion that deferr...
059.pdf	-	260	facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on ...
059.pdf	-	262	he opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern about intruding on the state's...
059.pdf	-	263	ct. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's prior Department experience. Sloman, h...
059.pdf	-	264	o benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more appropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering w...
059.pdf	-	265	rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafana from speaking to Acosta, Villafana interpreted Menchel' s email ...
059.pdf	-	266	a recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafana intended the scope...
059.pdf	-	286	ef wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."291 Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Villafana recalled that Sloman responde...
059.pdf	-	288	"do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming public."297 Villafana forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach mana...
059.pdf	-	291	at this most critical stage." Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that"[ n ]either federal agents...
059.pdf	-	293	cation Plan In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafana reported on November 16, 2007, to Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she ...
059.pdf	-	294	tims that the state court plea was to occur on December 14, 2007. 313 In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the prop...
059.pdf	-	298	ntinued to press their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta 319 The draft victim notification letter...
059.pdf	-	301	ong other things, notifications to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to notification of the ...
059.pdf	-	305	ecause Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to O...
059.pdf	-	315	el as to the other victim, and I believe, 360 Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited versi...
059.pdf	-	320	otification letter referenced language concerning 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein at...
059.pdf	-	339	sed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Villafafia's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman may have been conce...
059.pdf	-	342	s signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafana acted with the int...
059.pdf	-	350	egarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification ...
059.pdf	-	352	ring views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafana took steps to conf...
059.pdf	-	353	ifications 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,...
059.pdf	-	357	between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafana all identified. A...
059.pdf	-	365	carceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one of Epstei...
059.pdf	-	368	ecords and reviewed any responsive documents. After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox contained no ...
059.pdf	-	369	stigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error. Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through...
059.pdf	-	688	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
074.pdf	-	103	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens ofEpstein 1s victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
074.pdf	-	204	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
146.pdf	-	91	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
153.pdf	-	92	d continue top.ush a West Palm Beach-based federaljudge to throw out the nqnprosecution agreement that Acosta· forged with Epstein's-star-studded lega...
153.pdf	-	93	ous crimes, Reiter to'ok the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
166.pdf	-	102	continue to push a West Palm Beach-based federal judge to throw out the nonprosecution agreement that Acosta.forged with Epstein's star-studded legal ...
166.pdf	-	103	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
171.pdf	-	153	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his-officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report Executive Summary.pdf	-	5	e Attorney’s Office “was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing.” According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered thi...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report Executive Summary.pdf	-	11	carceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta’s “breakfast meeting” with one of Epstei...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	6	e Attorney’s Office “was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing.” According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered thi...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	12	carceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta’s “breakfast meeting” with one of Epstei...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	21	...........................................................163 G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña Agreed to the NPA’...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	45	who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey.” Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta.
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	51	r even the U.S. Attorney. Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta, Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloma...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	55	day. Menchel responded that “[y]ou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,” and explained that Acosta “has your [prosecution] memo,” but was at...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	64	. Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein’s victims. In Acosta’s estimation, a trial court in 2007 migh...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	69	o what concerns they were referring. In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney noted that Acosta’s concerns were “the possibility that br...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	71	at she requested. She viewed Menchel’s message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even though she r...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	74	rse of action to take on the case. On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that he would be leaving the US...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	77	ed the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta’s view, “[T]his was, rightly or wrongly,...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	82	ic state offenses to which Epstein would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they speak about it the...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	88	uld not interfere. Both Villafaña and her co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held Senate-con...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	92	fied in principle with the agreement.”109 The next day, September 13, 2007, Villafaña sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other superviso...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	100	wanted to have an appearance of having sort of an arm’s length from the deal.”119 Villafaña replied to Acosta’s 119 As noted throughout the Report, Vi...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	105	ll be prepared to sign as soon as today.” From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who replied, “Enjo[y] vacation. Working...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	110	ng. On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafaña circulated the new “final” version of the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	111	only with the PBPD Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein.129 Villafaña forwarded to Acosta, Lourie, and the West Palm Beach manager...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	114	aster and attorney representative. The next day, October 10, 2007, Lefkowitz sent a six-page letter to Acosta, as a “follow up to our conversation yes...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	116	saw would likely be a litigious selection process.”139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than two weeks after the breakfast...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	117	fying “areas of concern” with a proposal the USAO had made days before. Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it “re-ploughs some of what...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	123	ach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta’s letter, Starr and Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Atto...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	125	n expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date.” Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previous...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	126	NPA breached by the defense delays.157 Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta’s proposal raised “several troubling que...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	133	had concluded that “federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate” and that Acosta “could properly use his discretion to aut...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	136	a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case. Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached “the end...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	139	se was made weeks after the NPA was signed, when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, “so long as Mr. Epstein’s sentenc...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	142	ch County Sheriff’s Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta “recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	160	tionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates, and that Acosta’s exercise of his discretionary authorit...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	162	d necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below, OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated o...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	163	stants who were foreign nationals. After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta’s decision to resolve the federal invest...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	167	ssues relating to the investigation, participated in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Aco...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	170	the victims, Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta, or any of their colleagues, was motivat...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	174	n to offer a state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. According to Acosta, “In 2006, it would have been extremely ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	175	es OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a suggestion that Acosta’s decision to offer the July 31, 2007 te...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	176	faña nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	185	USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña me...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	188	evidence that the letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly after the breakfast meeting, dis...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	192	sm or other improper influences, or sought to silence victims. G. The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña Agreed to the NPA’...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	194	ployees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the non-...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	198	pstein would have become final, and accordingly, it was “prudent” to employ Petite policy analysis. In Acosta’s view, “the federal responsibility” in ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	201	state’s handling of the matter. 251 In commenting on OPR’s draft report, Acosta’s attorney stated that Acosta “accept[ed] OPR’s conclusion that deferr...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	205	facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta’s decision to pursue it set the case on ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	207	he opportunity to establish a mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta’s concern about intruding on the state’s...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	208	ct. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta’s prior Department experience. Sloman, h...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	209	o benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more appropriately be tied to Acosta’s misplaced concerns about interfering w...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	210	rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting Villafaña from speaking to Acosta, Villafaña interpreted Menchel’s email t...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	211	a recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña intended the scope...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	231	ef wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.”291 Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta. Villafaña recalled that Sloman responde...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	233	“do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming public.”297 Villafaña forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach mana...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	236	at this most critical stage.” Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October 10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that “[n]either federal agents ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	238	cation Plan In anticipation of Epstein’s state court plea, Villafaña reported on November 16, 2007, to Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	239	ctims that the state court plea was to occur on December 14, 2007.313 In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the prop...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	243	ntinued to press their objections to the USAO’s involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta 319 The draft victim notification letter...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	246	ong other things, notifications to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to notification of the ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	250	ecause Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to O...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	260	el as to the other victim, and I believe, 360 Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited versi...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	265	otification letter referenced language concerning 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had proposed in Acosta’s December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein at...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	284	ssed consulting the victims about the NPA before it was signed. Villafaña’s recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman may have been conce...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	287	s signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with the int...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	295	egarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR found no evidence that Acosta’s decision to defer victim notification ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	297	ring views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña took steps to conf...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	298	ifications 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,...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	302	between the signing of the NPA and Epstein’s entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all identified. A...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	310	carceration and sexual offender registration requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta’s “breakfast meeting” with one of Epstei...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	313	ecords and reviewed any responsive documents. After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta’s email records: his inbox contained no ...
2020.11 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report.pdf	-	314	stigation and concludes that it was most likely the result of a technological error. Although a gap in Acosta’s email inbox from May 26, 2007, through...
205.pdf	-	90	ious crimes. Reiter took the information his officers had gathered from dozens of Epstein's victims to Acosta, believing he would prosecute Epstein. H...