Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 24-27) (7/3/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 24-27) (7/3/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
0:03
In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
0:06
with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA. Part nine
0:11
February through June two thousand and eight. The Department's review.
0:16
Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the department,
0:20
one that would encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction,
0:23
specific terms of the NPA, and the various allegations of
0:27
professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The Department, however,
0:32
only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed
0:36
the NPA or any specific provisions. Nonetheless, the process took
0:40
several months, as the defense appealed the first two CEOs
0:44
and the department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office
0:47
of the Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on
0:50
the following page shows the positions and relationship among the
0:54
individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO
0:58
or Defense beginning in November two thousand and seven, or
1:01
in those offices reviews which continued through June of two
1:06
thousand and eight. Part A February through May fifteenth, two
1:10
thousand and eight review by CEOs and Criminal Division. On
1:14
February twenty first, two thousand and eight, soon after the
1:17
CEO's trial attorney met with victims, oster Bond spoke with
1:21
left Kowitz about CEO's role. In a subsequent email to Villafauna,
1:25
Sloman and Signor, Osterbon explained, I told left Kowitz that
1:29
all I wanted to do is help the process move forward,
1:32
and if they think we best help the process by
1:34
taking a fresh and objective look at the case and
1:37
their arguments, then that is what I want to do.
1:40
I told them that if that's what they want, if
1:42
that's what will help the process to move forward, then
1:45
I don't think it's advisable for CEO's partner with the
1:48
USAO on the case. He wants to think about that
1:51
and probably talk to his co council about whether it's
1:54
better to have US partnered in the case or just
1:56
serve as a review function, and he said he'd get
1:59
back to me later time. Osterbon told OPR that this
2:03
email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended
2:06
to limit CEO's role to review only, and Acosta asked
2:10
to make sure the defense is okay with that to
2:12
preempt the possible defense complain about CEO's involvement in the review.
2:17
Osterbon explained to OPR the defense kept bringing up new
2:21
arguments and new problems, and the USAO was saying, look,
2:25
if we're going to do this, if you've got a
2:27
problem with it, tell us now. By February twenty fifth,
2:30
two thousand and eight, Leftkowitz told Osterbon, who informed Slowman
2:34
that the CEO's role should be review only. Lori had
2:39
just left the department to enter private practice, and Osterbon
2:42
continued to keep his direct supervisor. Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2:46
Mandelker informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman email left
2:50
Kowitz that CEOs was ready to proceed immediately with a
2:55
review of the matter. Sloman advised left Kowitz that in
2:58
the event CEOs decides that that federal prosecution should not
3:01
be undertaken against mister Epstein, this office will close its investigation,
3:06
but that should CEOs disagree with mister Epstein's position, mister
3:10
Epstein shall have one week to abide by the NPA.
3:13
Sloman forwarded this email to Villa Fauna, who responded, why
3:17
would we possibly let him keep the same deal, after
3:20
all he has put us through and after we've discovered
3:22
six new girls. The defense soon signaled that the CEO's
3:26
review would not end the Epstein requests for the department's involvement.
3:29
On February twenty ninth, two thousand and eight, left Kowitz
3:32
requested a defense meeting with osterbon On March twelfth, two
3:36
thousand and eight, Star spoke to assist an Attorney General
3:39
Fisher and made it clear that the defense team would
3:42
want an audience with her if CEOs decided to support
3:45
the prosecution. On March six, two thousand and eight, Acosta
3:49
alerted Slowman and Ostrabon that Star in left Kowitz had
3:52
called him to express concern about Osterbond's participation in the
3:56
case and indicated that they may ask for more senior involvement.
4:00
A Costa informed them that they certainly have the right
4:03
to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate,
4:06
and whatever process would be given to them was up
4:09
to whomever they asked. The next day, left Kowitz followed
4:13
up with a Costa in an email. We appreciate that
4:15
you will afford us as much time as Main Justice
4:18
determines as appropriate for it to conduct a review of
4:21
this matter. As you have suggested, we will initiate the
4:24
review process with Drew Osterbond and engage in a discussion
4:27
with them about all the facts and circumstances, as well
4:30
as the legal and policy issues associated with the case. However,
4:34
due to our misgivings engendered because Drew has told us
4:38
that he sees himself as a prosecutor and has already
4:41
made clear he would be ready and willing to prosecute
4:44
this case himself, we may well find it necessary to
4:48
appeal an adverse determination by them within the DOJ. Can
4:51
Starr and I appreciate that you understand this and have
4:54
no objection to our seeking appellate review within the DOJ.
4:58
Star Lefkowitz and Martin Weinberg attended the March twelve, two
5:02
thousand and eight meeting, as well as the former Principal
5:04
Deputy Chief of CEOs who had joined the Epstein defense team, Osterbon. Mandelker,
5:10
and current CEO's deputy chief represented the department. The current
5:14
CEO's deputy chief told OPR that he recalled some back
5:19
and forth because the defense team was saying some outrageous things.
5:22
Both Osterbon and his deputy chief were disturbed that the
5:26
former CEO's principal deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive
5:29
advocate for child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position,
5:34
although according to the CEO's deputy chief, the former principal
5:38
deputy Chief gave only a week pitch that was not effective.
5:42
After the meeting, starn Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to
5:46
the Criminal Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of
5:50
USAO actions that have caused US serious concern, including the
5:53
following federal involvement in state criminal prosecution without any communication
5:58
with state authorities, the issuance of legal process and document
6:01
requests for items that had no connection to conduct that issue,
6:05
the nomination of an individual closely associated with one of
6:08
the assistant United States Attorneys involved in the case to
6:11
serve as the victim's attorney representative, the insistence on a
6:15
victim notification letter inviting the victims to make sworn statements
6:19
at Epstein's sentencing, and the reported existence of a relationship
6:23
between Sloman and the law firm representing several of the
6:26
alleged victims in civil suits against Epstein. In another letter,
6:30
Star renewed the defense accusation that USAO improperly disclosed information
6:35
about the case to the media and accused Slowman and
6:37
Villa Fauna of encouraging civil litigation against Epstein. Finally, in
6:42
a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May fourteenth,
6:45
two thousand and eight, Starthankedor for having spoken to him
6:49
the previous day, reiterated the defense team's various complaints, and
6:53
asked her to meet with them Lefkowitz and Whitley. Meanwhile,
6:56
Ostrabahd's deputy chief drafted a decision letter to be sent
6:59
from from Osterbond to Leftkowitz, and over the course of
7:03
several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from
7:06
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher,
7:11
as well as the Criminal Division's Appellate Section regarding certain
7:15
legal issues and Office of Enforcement operations regarding the petite policy.
7:20
Osterband told OPR that, notwithstanding the defense submissions on a
7:24
wide variety of issues and complaints, ceos's review was limited
7:28
to determining whether there was a basis for a federal
7:31
prosecution of Epstein. Osterbond's letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May fifteenth,
7:36
two thousand and eight, notified the defense team that CEOs
7:40
had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein
7:44
for federal criminal violations would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests.
7:49
The letter specified that CEOs reviewed addressed the narrow question
7:54
of whether a legitimate basis existed for a federal prosecution,
7:58
and that CEOs did not conduct a denovo review of
8:01
the facts, analyze issues relating to federal statutes that did
8:05
not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of
8:08
the NPA or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that,
8:13
based on its examination of the material relevant to its
8:17
limited review of the matter, CEOs has concluded that federal
8:21
prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate,
8:25
and that Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize
8:28
prosecution in the case. On May nineteenth, two thousand and eight,
8:31
Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and
8:35
specifically asked that Acosta not shunt me off till one
8:38
of your staff. Lefkowitz made several points in support of
8:42
the requests for a meeting. One CEO's letter acknowledged that
8:45
federal prosecution of Epstein would involve a novel application of
8:49
relevant federal statutes. Two CEO's conclusion that federal prosecution would
8:55
not be an abuse of discretion was hardly an endorsement
8:57
of the case. Three CEOs did not address Epstein's prosecutorial
9:02
misconduct allegations, and for critical new evidence in the form
9:06
of recent Defense Council depositions of victims confirmed that federal
9:11
prosecution is not appropriate in this case. Lefkowitz alluded to
9:15
the possibility of seeking further review of the matter by
9:18
the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General should the defense
9:22
be unable to resolve this matter directly with Acosta. Acosta
9:26
declined the request to respond personally and directed Leftkowitz to
9:30
communicate with the trial team. That same day, Sloman sent
9:34
Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further communication about the
9:37
case be made to Villa Fauna or her immediate supervisor,
9:40
and reiterating that Acosta would not respond personally to council's
9:44
email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO had bent
9:48
over backwards to exhaustively consider and reconsider Epstein's objections, but
9:53
these objections have finally been exhausted. Sloman advised that the
9:56
USAO would terminate the NPA unless Epstein implied with all
10:01
of its terms by the close of business on June second,
10:04
two thousand and eight, b May through June twenty third,
10:08
two thousand and eight review by the Office of the
10:10
Deputy Attorney General. Also on May nineteenth, two thousand and eight,
10:14
Starn Whitley co authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General
10:17
Mark Philippe asking for a review of the federal involvement
10:21
in a quintessentially state matter. In the letter, they acknowledged
10:24
that CEOs had recently completed a very limited review of
10:28
the Epstein case, but contended that the full review of
10:31
all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of
10:34
the Justice Department. They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein
10:38
was unwarranted and that the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors
10:42
and the unorthodox terms of the NPA are but beyond
10:45
any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities.
10:50
They followed up with the second letter on May twenty seventh,
10:52
two thousand and eight, in which they asserted the bedrock
10:55
need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws
10:59
and the profound raised by the unprecedented extension of federal
11:03
laws to a prominent public figure who has close ties
11:07
to President Clinton required department review. On this latter point,
11:11
they argued that Epstein entered the public arena only by
11:14
virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton,
11:18
and that there is little doubt that the USAO never
11:21
would have contemplated a prosecution in the case if mister
11:24
Ebstein were just another John. This was the first defense
11:27
submission mentioning Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the
11:31
insinuation that the federal involvement in the investigation was due
11:35
to politics. In the May twenty seventh, two thousand and
11:38
eight letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley
11:41
use the existing June second, two thousand and eight deadline
11:44
for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that
11:47
it made the need for review of the case all
11:49
that more exigent. John Roth, a senior Associate Deputy Attorney
11:53
General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to
11:56
rescind the deadline, and on May twenty eighth, two thousand
11:59
and eight, Slowman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed
12:03
the deadline pending completion of the review by the Deputy
12:06
Attorney General's office. Meanwhile, the Criminal Division forwarded to Roth
12:11
the prior defense emissions, describing them as an enormous amount
12:14
of material regarding the Epstein matter. On June three, two
12:18
thousand and eight, Slowman sent to Roth a lengthy letter
12:21
from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting detail the
12:24
history of negotiations with Epstein's council, culminating in the NPA,
12:29
and addressing Epstein's claims a professional misconduct. Among the documents
12:33
omitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum, one of
12:36
the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum,
12:40
and Acosta's December nineteenth, two thousand seven, letter to Sanchez.
12:44
As the review was ongoing in the office of the
12:46
Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney Krisher mentioned to the usao's
12:50
West Palm Beach manager that Krisher and Epstein's local defense attorney,
12:54
Jack Goldberger, had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case
12:58
that would involve A ninety eight eight, but Krisher provided
13:01
no further information. Upon learning of this, Villa Fauna wrote
13:05
to her immediate supervisor please tell me that you're joking.
13:09
Maybe we should throw him a party and tell him
13:11
that we're sorry to have bothered him talking about Epstein.
13:14
Villa Fauna and her immediate supervisor later had phoned an
13:17
email exchange with Krisher and with Epstein's local council to
13:21
insist that the state plea comply with the terms of
13:24
the NPA, or we will consider it a breach of
13:27
the agreement and proceed accordingly. Deputy Attorney General Philippe told
13:31
OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving Star's letter.
13:35
Following the office's standard protocol, stars letter was handled by
13:39
John Roth, an experienced federal prosecutor who had served some
13:43
years before as a USA in the USAO. Roth had
13:47
told OPR that he had never heard of Epstein. Roth
13:50
explained to OPR that he did not conduct an independent investigation,
13:54
interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's counsel, and instead limited
13:58
his review to written material submitted by Epstein's attorneys and
14:02
by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well
14:05
as materials that the defense team and the USAO had
14:08
previously provided to CEOs and the Criminal Division Front Office
14:12
and that CEOs furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter
14:16
with two senior staff colleagues as well as with Deputy
14:19
Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions. Roth told OPR
14:23
that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on
14:25
the NPA, and because he believed the NPA was a
14:28
dead letter, that he did not review the terms of
14:31
the agreement or ratify at post Hawk. On the other hand,
14:34
Deputy Attorney General Philippe told OPR he understood that the
14:38
NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying
14:40
to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis for the agreement. Apart
14:45
from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments. However, Deputy Attorney General Philippe
14:50
did not believe it was the mission of the office
14:52
of the Deputy Attorney General to review the Epstein case Denovo,
14:56
to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether the NPA
15:00
reach of the right balance between state and federal punishment.
15:03
He told OPR, we heard an appeal. Epstein wanted a
15:06
meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting,
15:09
and we didn't give him any relief. Deputy Attorney General
15:12
Philippe told OPR that no one in his office who
15:16
looked at Epstein's arguments felt that it was sympathetic appeal.
15:20
In particular, he told OPR that Defense Counsel's argument that
15:23
there was no basis for a federal prosecution was ludicrous,
15:27
and the assertion that the usao's investigation of Epstein was
15:30
politically motivated just seemed unserious. On Monday, June twenty three,
15:35
two thousand and eight, Ross sent a brief letter to
15:37
Starr and Leftkwitz, informing them that the office had completed
15:41
a thorough review of the usao's handling of the Epstein
15:44
matter and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney
15:48
General was warranted in view of the considerable discretion vested
15:51
by the Department in the US attorneys. He added, even
15:55
if we were to substitute our judgment for that of
15:57
the US Attorney, we believe the federal process acution of
16:00
this case is appropriate. Immediately after receiving a copy of
16:04
Roth's letter, Villa Fauna notified Defense counsel that Epstein would
16:07
have until close of business on Monday, June thirtieth, two
16:10
thousand and eight to comply with the NPA by entering
16:13
his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving
16:17
his sentence. On June twenty six, two thousand and eight,
16:21
Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's
16:23
counsel might try to contact the Attorney General to request
16:26
additional review and urge the Attorney General not to take
16:30
defense Council's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned
16:34
that Epstein's team would try to take further appeal in
16:37
order to delay resolution in the case. Meanwhile, Starr sent
16:41
a concluding email to Alcosta, acknowledging that they had reached
16:44
the end of a long and arduous road and adding,
16:47
while I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe
16:50
is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom
16:53
I have come to deeply admire, I recognize that we
16:55
have filed and argued are appellate motions and lost. I
16:59
would like to have some closure with you on this matter,
17:01
so that in the years to come, neither of us
17:03
will harbor any will or ill will over this matter.
17:07
All Right, we're gonna wrap up right there, and in
17:09
the next episode we're going to pick up with part
17:11
ten June two thousand and eight through June two thousand
17:14
and nine. All of the information that goes with this
17:17
episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone,
17:20
and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
17:24
we're getting right back to DOIG report into the Non
17:28
Prosecution Agreement Part ten. June two thousand and eight through
17:33
June two thousand and nine. Epstein enters as pleas and
17:36
serves his custodial sentence. On Friday, June twenty seventh, two
17:40
thousand and eight, Villa Fauna renewed her request to Epstein's
17:43
local attorneys, Goldberger and Black, for a copy of this
17:46
date plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's office, noting
17:50
that their failure to provide it was a material breach
17:53
of the NPA. After receiving and reviewing the plea agreement form,
17:57
which was not yet signed, Villa Fauna sent another other
18:00
letter to Goldberger and Black informing them that the proposed
18:03
sentence provision did not comply with the requirements of the NPA. Specifically,
18:08
as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of
18:11
twelve months in the Palm Beach County Detention facility, followed
18:14
consecutively by eighteen months community control, with a special condition
18:19
that the defendants served the first six months of community
18:22
control in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility. Villa Fauna
18:26
objected to the community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black
18:30
that the NPA required Epstein to make a binding recommendation
18:34
of eighteen months imprisonment, which meant confinement twenty four hours
18:38
a day at the county jail. In a subsequent email
18:41
to Sloman, Villa Fauna recounted that she had spoken about
18:44
the issue with Goldberger, who swore that Epstein would be
18:47
in custody twenty four hours a day during the community
18:50
confinement portion of his sentence. Villa Fauna added that Goldberger
18:54
let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail,
18:57
he would be at the stockade. Since we specifically discus
19:00
this at a meeting with the state attorney months ago,
19:02
that Epstein would be at the jail, this certainly violates
19:05
the spirit of the NPA agreement, Villa Fauna told Sloman,
19:08
something smells very bad. The next day, Villa Fauna asked
19:12
Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the word
19:15
imprisoned after six months, and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafauna, however,
19:21
did not ask the agreement to be amended to clarify
19:23
that the reference to the Palm Beach County Detention Facility
19:26
meant the jail rather than the stockade. The final signed
19:30
plea agreement form further clarified the sentence, providing that after
19:34
serving twelve months in the pom Beach County Detention Facility,
19:37
Epstein would be sentenced to six months in the pom
19:39
Beach County Detention Facility, to be served consecutive to the
19:43
twelve month sentence, followed by twelve months community control. The
19:46
word imprisoned was handwritten after six months, but then crossed
19:50
out and replaced by jail sentence Part A. June thirtieth,
19:54
two thousand and eight. Epstein enters as guilty pleased in
19:57
state court. Epstein, with his attorney g At Goldberger, appeared
20:01
in Palm Beach County Court on June thirtieth, two thousand
20:04
and eight, and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging
20:07
him with one felony account of solicitation a prostitution and
20:10
to a criminal information charging him with one felony account
20:13
of procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. At
20:17
the plea hearing, which Villafauna and the FBI case agent
20:20
attended as spectators, Assistant State Attorney Bellohovlk did not profer
20:25
the facts of the case. Instead, she only recited the
20:28
charging language and the indictment and the criminal information. Between
20:32
August first, two thousand and four and October thirty first,
20:34
two thousand and five, the defendant in Palm Beach County
20:37
did solicit or procure someone to commit prostitution on three
20:41
or more occasions, and between August first, two thousand and
20:44
four and October ninth, two thousand and five, the defendant
20:47
did procure a minor under the age of eighteen to
20:50
commit prostitution in Palm Beach County. Also, the Court found
20:54
this to be sufficient factual basis to support the pleas
20:57
and engaged in a colloquy with Bellohovely regarding Epstein's victims,
21:02
the Court are there more than one victim, Miss Bellehovlik,
21:05
there are several. The Court are all the victims in
21:08
both the cases in agreement with the terms of the plea.
21:11
Miss Bellohovlik I have spoken to several myself and I
21:14
have spoken to Council through Council as to the other victims,
21:17
and I believe yes, the court and with regard to
21:20
the victims under age eighteen, is that victim's parents or
21:23
guardian in agreement with the plea. Miss Bellehovlik. The victim
21:27
is not under the age of eighteen anymore, and that's
21:29
why we spoke to Council the court and she's in
21:32
agreement with the plea. Miss Bellehovelk yes. When the court
21:36
asked if the plea was in any way tied to
21:38
any promises or representations by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions,
21:44
Goldberger and Bellehovelk, with Epstein present, spoke with the judge
21:48
at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the confidential non
21:51
prosecution agreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that
21:54
a copy of it be filed under seal with the court.
21:57
After the court accepted Epstein's guilty plea and imposed sentence
22:01
on him pursue it to the plea agreement, Epstein was
22:03
taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately. In
22:07
the aftermath of the plea, numerous Individuals familiar with the
22:10
investigation expressed positive reactions to the outcome, and Villa Fauna
22:15
received several congratulatory messages. Osterbahn wrote, congratulations, Marie, at long last.
22:21
Your work on this matter was truly exceptional, and you
22:23
obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well.
22:27
One senior colleague who was familiar with the case noted
22:30
the case only resolved with the filthy, rich, bad guy
22:33
going to jail because of your dedication and determination. Another wrote,
22:37
if it had not been for you, he would have
22:39
gotten away with it. The CEO's trial attorney, who worked
22:43
briefly with Villa Fana, told her, but for your tenacity,
22:47
he'd be somewhere ruining another child's life. One victim's attorney stated,
22:51
great job of not letting this guy off the hook.
22:53
But Villa Fauna was not satisfied with the outcome, responding
22:56
to one colleague, after all the hell they put me through,
23:00
I don't feel like celebrating eighteen months. He should be
23:02
spending eighteen years in jail. Acosta later publicly stated that
23:07
the FBI Special Agent in charge called them to offer
23:10
congratulations and to praise prosecutors for holding firm against the
23:14
attorneys that Epstein brought on. In the same later public statement,
23:18
Acosta noted that he received communications from Dershowitz, Star and Leftkwitz,
23:22
who all sought to make peace with them. A Costa
23:25
referred to it as a proud moment. On July seventh,
23:28
two thousand and eight, and Epstein victim filed an emergency
23:31
petition against the department in federal court in Miami, alleging
23:35
a violation of her rights under the CVRA. A second
23:38
victim joined the petition soon thereafter. The History of the
23:41
litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in Chapter
23:45
three of this report. B Epstein is placed on work
23:49
release a few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villa Fauna
23:53
reported to Sloman that Epstein was incarcerated at the low
23:56
security stockade, rather than the main detention center, where a
23:59
county print listeners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that,
24:03
according to the Sheriff's office, Epstein was eligible for work release.
24:07
Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein
24:10
to be incarcerated twenty four hours a day, every day,
24:14
the subject of the work release had not been addressed explicitly.
24:17
During the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent
24:21
on the issue. Epstein's acceptance into the work release program
24:25
as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as
24:28
another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to
24:32
allow Epstein into the work release program was made by
24:35
the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether
24:38
any state, county or sheriff office rules were violated. OPR
24:43
did examine the usao's consideration of work release prior to
24:46
signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to ensure
24:50
that Epstein remained incarcerated twenty four hours a day. The
24:54
first specific reference to work release was made weeks after
24:58
the NPA was signed, when left Kwitz asserted in his
25:01
October twenty three, two thousand seven, letter to Acosta that
25:04
so long as mister Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate
25:07
the terms of the NPA, he's entitled to any type
25:10
of sentence available to him, including, but not limited to
25:13
gain time and work release. In November two thousand and seven,
25:17
Slowman had an exchange of letters with left Kwitz about
25:20
the usao's understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve as
25:23
full jail term in continuous confinement. Pointing out that the
25:27
NPA clearly indicates that mister Epstein is to be incarcerated.
25:31
Sloman noted the Florida Department of Corrections rules did not
25:34
allow individuals registered as sexual offenders to participate in work release,
25:39
and thus Epstein would not be eligible for work release program.
25:42
Sloman concluded that the USAO is putting you on notice
25:46
that it intends to make certain that mister Epstein is
25:48
treated no better and no worse than anyone else convicted
25:52
of the same offense, and that if Epstein were to
25:54
be granted work release, the USAO would investigate the reasons
25:58
why an exception was granted in mister Epstein's case. However,
26:02
also in November, State attorney Krisher told Sloman that Epstein
26:06
was in fact eligible to petition for work release because
26:09
the sexual offender registration would not take place until after
26:13
Epstein completed the sentence, but that Krisher would oppose such
26:16
a petition if it's in the agreement. On November sixteenth,
26:19
two thousand and seven, the case agents met with Bellehovlk
26:23
and asked if the State Attorney's office would oppose a
26:25
request that Epstein be granted work release. Bellohovlk was noncommittal,
26:30
and when the agents asked what she included language in
26:33
the state's plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release,
26:37
she responded that she would have to discuss the issue
26:39
with the state attorney. Krisher later told OPR that work
26:43
release was within the control of the Sheriff's office, not
26:45
my office. The state's plea agreement with Epstein did not
26:49
address the issue of work release. The day after Epstein
26:53
entered his June thirtieth, two thousand and eight, plea, Villa
26:55
Fauna and her immediate supervisor and met with Pombe Sheriff's
26:58
Office officials today discuss work release. According to Villa Fauna,
27:02
the official told them Epstein would be eligible for work
27:05
release and will be placed on work release, a statement
27:08
that contradicted the information the case agents had been given
27:12
by the jail supervisor the previous November, as well as
27:15
statements made by the defense attorney Jack Goldberger to Villa
27:18
Fauna just days before the plea was entered, when he
27:21
specifically told Villa Fauna that Epstein would not get work release.
27:25
Villa Fauna alerted the Sheriff's Office official that although Epstein
27:29
told the court during his plea proceeding that he had
27:32
worked every day for a couple of years at the
27:34
Florida Science Foundation, that entity did not even exist until
27:38
November two thousand and seven. Moreover, the address Epstein provided
27:42
to the court for the Florida Science Foundation was the
27:44
office of Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger. Villa Fauna and her
27:48
supervisor asked the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein
27:52
applied for work release. Acosta told OPR that he was
27:56
aware of Villa Fauna was trying to ensure that Epstein
27:58
did not get work release, and he would not have
28:01
contradicted or efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO expected Epstein
28:05
would be treated like everyone else, but that, as shown
28:09
by our subsequent communications with the State Attorney's Office, having
28:12
Epstein on work release was not what our office envisioned.
28:16
All Right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in
28:18
the next episode, we're going to pick up where we
28:20
left off. All of the information that goes with this
28:22
episode can be found in the description box. What's Up everyone,
28:26
and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
28:30
we're going to get back to the OIG report into
28:33
Jeffrey Epstein's non prosecution agreement. In August two thousand and eight,
28:37
Villa Fauna spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's
28:41
compliance with the NPA and raise the issue of work release.
28:45
Villa Fauna later reported to Acosta and Slowman that Black
28:49
assured her that he had reminded the team that eighteen
28:51
months in jail is a material term of the agreement.
28:54
The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application.
28:59
On October tix, two thousand and eight, less than three
29:01
and a half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea,
29:04
the Pombeach Sheriff's Office placed him into the work release program,
29:08
permitting him to leave the stockade for up to twelve
29:11
hours per day, six days per week to work at
29:13
the Florida Science Foundation office in West Palm Beach. In
29:17
mid November two thousand and eight, Villa Fauna learned that
29:20
Epstein was on work release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and
29:24
the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development in an
29:27
email and asked can I indict him now. On November
29:30
twenty fourth, two thousand and eight, Villa Fauna sent Defense
29:33
Attorney Black a letter notifying him that the USAO believed
29:37
Epstein's application to in participation in the work release program
29:41
constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villa Fauna reminded
29:45
Black that she had more than a dozen emails expressing
29:48
the usao's insistence that Epstein be incarcerated for eighteen months,
29:53
and that her June twenty seventh, two thousand and eight
29:55
letter to Council made it clear that this meant confinement
29:58
for twenty four hours a day. Villafanna noted that Goldberger
30:02
had not inserted the word imprisoned into the plea agreement,
30:05
as he agreed to, but instead inserted the term jail sentence.
30:09
Villa Fauna told Council the usao's agreement not to prosecute
30:13
mister Epstein was based upon its determination that eighteen months
30:17
incarceration confinement twenty four hours a day was sufficient to
30:21
satisfy the federal interest in mister Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the
30:25
US Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that mister Epstein has
30:28
violated the NPA by failing to remain incarcerated twenty four
30:32
hours a day for the eighteen month term of imprisonment.
30:35
The United States will exercise any and all rights it
30:38
has under the NPA unless mister Epstein immediately ceases and
30:42
desists from his breach of this agreement. According to Villa Fauna,
30:46
the FBI case agent spoke with the stockade's work release
30:49
coordinator and reported back that the work release coordinator told
30:52
her he had been led to believe the government knew
30:54
Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had
30:57
been threatened with legal action if he did not allow
31:00
Epstein to participate in work release. On November twenty sixth,
31:04
two thousand and eight, the USAO advised the department that
31:07
Acosta was recused from all matters involving the law firm
31:10
of Kirkland Nellis, which was still heavily involved in the
31:14
Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the
31:17
possibility of employment. As a result, Slowman became the senior
31:21
USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to Epstein.
31:26
Also on November twenty six, two thousand and eight, Black
31:29
responded to Villa Fauna's letter acknowledging that Epstein was serving
31:32
his sentence in the Palm Beach County work release program,
31:35
but denying that Epstein was in breach of the NPA.
31:38
Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release.
31:42
The NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded
31:45
the same benefits as any other inmate. Florida law treated
31:49
work release as part of confinement, and the Palm Beach
31:52
County Sheriff's Office had discretion to grant work release to
31:55
any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta recognized that mister
31:59
Epstein might serve portion of his sentence through the work
32:01
release program, and pointed out that the December sixth, two
32:04
thousand and seven draft victim notification letter sent to Lefkowitz
32:08
for review specifically referred to the victim's rights to be
32:11
notified if Epstein is allowed to participate in a work
32:14
release program. On December third, two thousand and eight, in
32:18
advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafanas and Sloman
32:22
and Criminal Division Chiefs Senior and Email about Epstein's participation
32:26
in the work release program. It appears that since day one,
32:29
Goldberger and Krisher have been scheming to get Epstein out
32:32
on work release. For example, the indictment incorrectly charges Epstein
32:36
for an offense that would have made him ineligible for
32:39
work release if it had been charged correctly. Remember that
32:42
Krisher also went along with letting us believe that Epstein
32:45
was pleading to a registrable offense when Epstein's folks and
32:49
Krisher believed that the offense was not registrable. Krisher and
32:52
Goldberger also told us that Epstein would be housed in
32:55
the Palm Beach County Jail, not the stockade, but he
32:58
would not have been eligible bull for work release at
33:01
the jail. As part of his work release, Epstein has
33:04
hired off duty sheriff's deputies to provide him with protection.
33:07
It appears that he is paying between three thousand and
33:10
forty one hundred per week for this service, despite the
33:13
work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's office and
33:16
Sheriff's office itself from having any business transactions with inmates
33:20
while they are in the custody or supervision of the sheriff.
33:22
Villa Fauna added that she and her immediate supervisor believed
33:26
that the USAO should not budge on the twenty four
33:29
hour a day incarceration requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation,
33:34
Villa Fauna also pointed out that two victims had brought
33:37
suit against the USAO for failing to keep them informed
33:40
about the investigation, and the office had no obligation to
33:43
inform all the victims. Upon Epstein's release. On December eleventh,
33:48
two thousand and eight, Villa Fauna wrote the Corrections Division
33:51
of Upon Beach County Sheriff's Office to express the usao's
33:54
view that Epstein was not eligible for work release and
33:57
to alert the Sheriff's office that Epstein's work release application
34:01
contained several inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Villa Fauna pointed
34:06
out that Epstein's application identified his place of employment as
34:10
the Florida Science Foundation, and the telephone number listed in
34:13
the application for the Florida Science Foundation was the telephone
34:17
number to the law firm of Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger.
34:20
Villa Fauna also noted that the individual identified in the
34:23
work release file as Epstein's supervisor at the Florida Science
34:27
Foundation had submitted publicly available sworn filings to the Internal
34:31
Revenue service, indicating that Epstein worked only one hour per
34:35
week and earned no compensation, but that same individual had
34:38
represented to the Sheriff's office that Epstein's duties required him
34:42
to work six days a week for twelve hours per day. Finally,
34:46
Villa Fauna pointed out that Epstein's purported supervisor, who as
34:50
the foundation's vice president, was subordinate to Epstein. The foundation's
34:54
president had promised to alert the Sheriff's office at Epstein
34:57
failed to comply with his work schedule, but the supervisor
35:00
lived and worked in New York and was unable to
35:03
monitor Epstein's activities on a day to day basis. The
35:06
Sheriff's office neither acknowledged nor responded to Villafana's letter. In
35:10
March two thousand and nine, Slowman met in Miami with
35:13
Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it, a subsequent email or
35:17
relaxed drink and conversation, and included a discussion about the
35:21
Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Slowman expressing appreciation
35:26
for Slowman's assurances that the FEDS will not interfere with
35:30
how Pombeach Sheriff administers Epstein's sentence as long as he's
35:34
treated like any similarly situated inmate. Sloman responded, regarding mister Epstein,
35:40
the United States Attorney's Office will not interfere without the
35:43
Pombeach Sheriff's Office administers the sentence imposed by the court.
35:46
That being said, this does not mean that the USAO
35:49
condones or encourages the PbSO to mitigate the terms and
35:53
conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean that
35:56
if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or in
36:01
home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted,
36:04
we will object naturally. I also expect that no one
36:08
on behalf of mister Epstein will use my assurance to
36:11
you to affirmatively represent the PbSO that the USAO does
36:15
not object to an alternative custody or home detention. A
36:20
week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation
36:24
for Sloman's willingness to call the sheriff and advise him
36:27
that your office would take no position on how he
36:29
handled Epstein's sentence as long as Epstein did not receive
36:32
special treatment, but adding, let's put any call off for
36:35
a while. Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to
36:39
his home for a twelve month period following his release
36:42
from prison. On July twenty second, two thousand and nine,
36:45
almost thirteen months after we began serving a sentence, Epstein
36:48
was released from the stockade and placed on home confinement.
36:52
At this time, he registered as a sexual offender. Nine
36:55
post release developments in the summer of two thousand and nine,
36:59
allegations sir that Epstein had cooperated with the US Attorney's
37:03
Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of
37:06
investment bank bear Stearns, and that he had been released
37:09
early from his eighteen month imprisonment term because of that.
37:12
When Villa Fauna spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District
37:15
of New York, however, an ausa told Villa Fauna that
37:19
they never heard of Epstein and that he had not
37:21
cooperated with the bear Stearns case. During her OPR interview,
37:24
Villa Fauna told OPR that, to her knowledge, the rumor
37:28
of Epstein's cooperation was completely false. Villa Fauna and the
37:32
USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of
37:35
the NPA. In August two thousand and nine, Villa Fauna
37:38
alerted her supervisors that Epstein was an apparent violation of
37:42
his home detention. He had been spotted walking on the beach,
37:45
and when stopped by the police, he claimed that he
37:47
was walking to work at an office nearly eight miles
37:50
from his home. Villa Fauna passed this information along to
37:53
the Palm Beach County Probation Office. By letter dated September one,
37:57
two thousand and nine, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the
37:59
u usao's agreement transfer supervision of the community control phase
38:04
of epstein sentence to the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein
38:07
maintained its primary residence. In response, Villa Fauna notified Black
38:12
that the USAO opposed such a request and would view
38:15
it as a violation of the NPA. Three months later,
38:18
Slowman met with Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed them
38:22
that the USAO opposed early termination of Epstein's community control
38:26
supervision and would object to request to transfer epstein supervision
38:30
to the US Virgin Islands. After serving his year in
38:33
home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on July
38:37
twenty first, twenty ten. All right, we're going to wrap
38:40
up here and in the next episode we're going to
38:42
pick up with Chapter two, Part two, Applicable Standards. All
38:46
of the information that goes with this episode can be
38:49
found in the description box. What's up everyone, and welcome
38:53
back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting
38:56
back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's non pro
39:00
secution Agreement. Chapter two, Part two Applicable Standards one opr's
39:06
analytical framework. OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally
39:11
violates or acts in reckless disregard of a known unambiguous
39:16
obligation imposed by law, rule of professional conduct, or department
39:20
regulation or policy. In determining whether an attorney has engaged
39:25
in a professional misconduct, OPR uses the preponderance of the
39:29
evidence standard to make factual findings. An attorney intentionally violates
39:33
an obligation standard when the attorney one engages in conduct
39:37
with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation
39:40
or standard unambiguously prohibits, or two engages in conduct knowing
39:45
its natural or probable consequence, and that the consequence is
39:49
a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An
39:53
attorney acts in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard
39:57
when one, the attorney knows or should know, based on
40:00
his or her experience, that the unambiguous nature of the
40:03
obligation or standard of an obligation or standard. Two, the
40:06
attorney knows or should know based on his or her
40:09
experience and the unambiguous applicability of the obligation of standard,
40:13
that the attorney's conduct involves a substantial likelihood that he
40:17
or she will violate or cause a violation of the
40:20
obligation or standard. And three, the attorney nonetheless engages in
40:25
the conduct which is objectively unreasonable under all the circumstances. Thus,
40:30
an attorney's disregard for an obligation is reckless when it
40:34
represents a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that
40:37
an objectively reasonable attorney would observe in the same situation.
40:41
If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in
40:44
professional misconduct, OPR determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment,
40:49
engaged in other inappropriate conduct, made a mistake, or acted
40:53
appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor judgment
40:58
when faced with alternative core of action, he or she
41:01
chooses a course of action that is in marked contrast
41:04
to the action that the department may reasonably expect. An
41:07
attorney exercising good judgment take poor judgment differs from professional
41:12
misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus
41:16
exhibit poor judgment, even though he or she may not
41:19
have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear
41:22
obligation or standard. In addition, an attorney may exhibit poor
41:26
judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is
41:29
not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding.
41:34
A mistake, on the other hand, results from an inexcusable
41:37
human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable care under
41:42
the circumstances. An attorney who makes a good faith attempt
41:46
to ascertain the obligation in standards imposed on the attorney
41:50
and to comply with them in a given situation does
41:53
not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a
41:56
good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations
42:00
standards consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the
42:04
tribunal or the attorney representing a party or person with
42:08
adverse interests of an intended course of conduct, or took
42:11
affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply
42:16
with an obligation or standard. Two applicable standards of conduct
42:21
a the United States Attorney's Manual. Among its many provisions,
42:25
United States Attorney Manual includes general statements of principles that
42:29
summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed and desirable practices to
42:33
be followed by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial responsibilities.
42:39
The goal of USAM is to promote the reasoned exercise
42:42
of prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, even handed
42:46
administration of the federal criminal laws, and to promote public
42:50
confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made rationally and
42:55
objectively on the merits of each case. U SAM Section
42:58
nine dashed twenty seven dot zero zero one. Because the
43:02
USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision making
43:05
process of government attorneys, many of its principles are cast
43:08
in general terms, with a view providing guidance rather than
43:12
mandating results. See also U SAM Section nine Dash twenty
43:16
seven dot one twenty comment. It is expected that each
43:19
federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying
43:23
out his or her criminal law enforcement responsibilities. However, it
43:27
is not intended that reference to these principles will require
43:30
a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case. U SAM
43:34
Section nine Dash twenty seven dot one ten comment. Under
43:38
federal law criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude
43:42
in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute
43:46
for apparent violation of federal criminal law. However, USAM Section
43:50
nine twenty seven dot one thirty provides that a usas
43:54
who depart from the principles of federal prosecution articulated in
43:58
the u SAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular,
44:02
USAM Section nine Dash twenty seven dot one thirty states
44:06
that each US attorney should establish internal office procedures to
44:10
ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level
44:13
of responsibility and are consistent with the principles set forth
44:17
in USAM, and that serious unjustified departures from the principles
44:21
set forth in USAM are followed by remedial action, including
44:25
the imposition of disciplinary sanction, when warranted and deemed appropriate.
44:30
US attorneys have plenty authority with regard to federal criminal matters,
44:34
and may modify or depart from the principles set forth
44:37
in USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair
44:40
and effect of law enforcement within their individual judicial districts.
44:44
USAM Section nine Dash two dot zero zero one nine
44:48
dot two seven dash one forty. The USAM provisions are
44:52
supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource Manual, which provides additional
44:56
guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal prosecute US
45:00
one u SAM provisions relating to the initiation and declination
45:05
of a federal prosecution. Federal prosecutors do not open a
45:09
case on every matter referred to them. U SAM Section
45:12
nine Dash two dot zero two zero explicitly authorizes a
45:17
US attorney to decline prosecution in any case referred directly
45:21
to him or her by an agency, unless a statute
45:24
provides otherwise. Whenever a US attorney closes a case without prosecution,
45:29
the file should reflect the action taken and the reason
45:32
for it. U SAM Section nine Dash twenty seven dot
45:35
two twenty sets forth the grounds to be considered in
45:38
making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution.
45:42
A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he
45:46
or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient
45:50
to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense,
45:53
unless one, the prosecution would serve no federal interest to
45:57
the person is subject to effect a prosecution in another jurisdiction,
46:01
or three there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A
46:05
comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's
46:09
task to determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making
46:13
the determination, the prosecutor should consult you SAM Section nine
46:17
Dash twenty seven dot two thirty nine Dash twenty seven
46:20
dot two forty or nine Dash twenty seven dot two
46:23
fifty as appropriate you SAM. Section nine Dash twenty seven
46:27
dot two three zero sets forth a non exhaustive list
46:30
of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining
46:34
whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating
46:38
prosecution against a person. One federal law enforcement priorities. Two
46:44
the nature and seriousness of the offense, three the determin
46:47
effect of prosecution. Four the person's culpability in connection with
46:51
the offense. Five the person's history with the respect to
46:54
the criminal activity, six the person's willingness to cooperate in
46:57
the investigation or prosecution of others, and seven the probable
47:01
sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted. The
47:06
USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline
47:10
to open a case in deference to prosecution by the
47:13
state in which the crime occurred. USAM Section nine to
47:16
twenty seven dot two forty directs that in evaluating the
47:20
effectiveness of prosecution and another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should
47:24
weigh all relevant considerations, including the strength of the other
47:28
jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness
47:32
to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences
47:37
the person will be subject to if convicted in the
47:40
other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains some offenses,
47:44
even though in violation of federal law, are of particularly
47:48
strong interest to the authorities of the state or local
47:51
jurisdiction in which that they occurred, either because of the
47:54
nature of the offense, the identity of the offender or victim,
47:58
the fact that the investigation was conducted primarily by state
48:01
or local investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason,
48:06
when it appears that federal interest in prosecution is less
48:09
substantial than the interest of state or local authorities, consideration
48:13
should be given to referring the case to those authorities,
48:17
rather than commencing or recommending a federal prosecution. Another comment
48:22
cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or
48:25
local authorities, the federal prosecutors should be alert to any
48:28
local conditions, attitudes, relationships, or other circumstances that might cast
48:33
doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities
48:36
conducting a thorough and successful prosecution. USAM Section nine twenty
48:41
seven dot two sixty. This statute identifies in permissible considerations
48:46
relating to the decision whether to initiate or decline a
48:49
federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on
48:53
consideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or
48:57
political association, activities, beliefs, the prosecutor's own personal feelings about
49:03
the person or the victim, or the possible effect of
49:06
the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances.
49:10
When opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure
49:14
that the reasons for that decision are communicated to the
49:17
investigating agency and reflected in the office files. U SAM.
49:22
Section nine Dash twenty seven dot two seventy two U SAM.
49:26
Section nine Dash two dot zero three to one. The
49:29
Petite Policy. Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of
49:33
a defendant by both state and federal authorities even when
49:36
the conduct charge is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the
49:40
Department has a long standing policy known as the Petite Policy,
49:43
governing federal prosecutions charged after the initiation of prosecution and
49:47
another jurisdiction based on the same or similar conduct. The
49:51
general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are
49:55
set forth in U SAM. Section nine Dash two dot
49:58
zero three one. Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy Petite Policy,
50:03
which contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor's exercise of discretion
50:07
in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on
50:10
the substantiality same act or transaction involving in a prior
50:14
state or federal proceeding. The policy applies whenever there has
50:17
been a prior state or federal prosecution resulting in an acquittal,
50:21
a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement, or
50:24
a dismissal or other termination of merits after jeopardy has attached.
50:29
In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless
50:32
can initiate a new federal prosecution when three substantative prerequisites exist.
50:38
The prerequisites or as follows, One, the matter must involve
50:41
a substantial federal interest. The determination whether a substantial federal
50:45
interest is involved is made by a case by case basis.
50:49
Matters that come within the National Investigation and Prosecution priorities
50:52
established by the Department are more likely to satisfy this
50:56
requirement than other matters. Two, the prior prosecution must have
51:00
left the substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the
51:05
Department presumes that a prior prosecution has vindicated federal interests,
51:10
but that presumption may be overcome in certain circumstances. As
51:13
relevant here. The presumption may be overcome when the choice
51:17
of charge in the prior prosecution was based on factors
51:20
such as incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption
51:25
may be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in
51:28
a conviction, if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in
51:32
light of the federal interest involved in a substantially enhanced sentence,
51:36
including forfeiture and restitution as well as imprisonment and fines,
51:40
is available through the contemplated federal prosecution. Three, the government
51:45
must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense
51:49
and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to
51:52
obtain and sustain a conviction. However, the satisfaction of the
51:56
prerequisite does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a
51:59
federal investigation or charges, nor is the department required to
52:03
approve the proposed prosecution. The Batite policy cautions at whatever
52:08
a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction, federal prosecutors
52:13
should consult with their state counterparts to determine the most
52:16
appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the
52:19
substantial federal and state interests involved. If a substantial question
52:24
arises as to whether the petite policy applies to a
52:27
particular prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the
52:31
appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution. Prior approval from the
52:35
appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained before bringing a
52:38
prosecution governed by this policy. All right, folks, we're going
52:42
to wrap up there, and in the next episode we're
52:44
going to pick up with Part three, use SAM provisions
52:46
relating to plea agreements. All of the information that goes
52:50
with this episode can be found in the description box.