DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
1.09 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
6
Events
4
Relationships
9
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.09 MB
Summary
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Acosta |
Mentioned as having identified risks related to Epstein's attorneys' conduct and believing in discretion for victim n...
|
|
| Sloman |
Mentioned as having identified risks with Acosta and Villafaña. Was emailed by Villafaña regarding victim notificatio...
|
|
| Villafaña | Federal prosecutor (implied) |
A central figure in the document who communicated with Edwards, her managers, and Sloman regarding Epstein's plea hea...
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
The subject of the state court guilty plea and related legal proceedings.
|
| Edwards | Victim's attorney |
Contacted by Villafaña about the plea hearing; his accounts of their conversations conflict with Villafaña's.
|
| Jeff Sloman |
Mentioned by full name as having asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist with victim notification.
|
|
| PBPD Chief Reiter | Chief, Palm Beach Police Department |
Was asked to assist with victim notification for Epstein's plea.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, which expected Epstein to plead guilty in October 2007.
|
| NPA | legal agreement |
Non-Prosecution Agreement, the signing of which is a key time marker in the events described.
|
| FBI | government agency |
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents were mentioned in a question posed by defense counsel to a victim.
|
| CVRA | law |
Crime Victims' Rights Act, mentioned in relation to litigation for which Villafaña and Edwards provided declarations/...
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, to whom Villafaña and Edwards provided statements.
|
| PBPD | government agency |
Palm Beach Police Department, whose Chief Reiter was asked to assist in victim notification.
|
Timeline (6 events)
2008-02-20
State deposition of a victim where defense counsel questioned her about potential financial gain.
Epstein's counsel
victim
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of 'Florida criminal procedure' used by the defense.
|
Relationships (4)
The document details their conflicting accounts of communications regarding Epstein's plea hearing, with Villafaña (prosecutor) contacting Edwards (victim's attorney) and their subsequent legal filings (declarations, affidavits) presenting contradictory versions of that conversation.
They were colleagues who communicated via email about the logistics of notifying victims, with Villafaña informing Sloman of the plan involving PBPD Chief Reiter.
They are listed together with Villafaña as having identified the risks posed by the conduct of Epstein's attorneys.
Key Quotes (9)
"where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when."Source
— Acosta
(A thought attributed to Acosta regarding victim notification when a case might go to trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #1
"was not given authorization to contact"Source
— Villafaña
(Villafaña's statement to OPR explaining why she only contacted Edwards and not other victims' attorneys.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #2
"gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all."Source
— Edwards
(From his 2017 affidavit, describing his perception of Villafaña's call on June 27, 2008.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #3
"Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation or prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward’s clients nor any of the federally-identified victims."Source
— Edwards (quoting Villafaña)
(From a 2016 court filing by Edwards, describing what he claims Villafaña told him.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #4
"never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’"Source
— Villafaña
(From her 2017 declaration, contradicting Edwards' account.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #5
"strongly encouraged [Edwards] and his clients to attend"Source
— Villafaña
(Her statement to OPR about what she told Edwards regarding the plea hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #6
"Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way."Source
— Edwards
(From his 2017 affidavit, acknowledging Villafaña conveyed the hearing's importance but not its full implications.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #7
"I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist."Source
— Villafaña
(From her handwritten notes on June 30, 2008, describing the internal process for victim notification.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #8
"is going to notify victims about the plea."Source
— Villafaña
(In a June 28, 2008 email to Sloman, informing him that PBPD Chief Reiter would handle notifications.)
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
Quote #9
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (4,444 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page48 of 217
SA-302
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 302 of 348
SA-302
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 302 of 348
not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a “very open question” whether the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that “where there is no legal requirement[,] [t]here has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when.”
Epstein’s attorneys’ conduct during the period 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. As Epstein’s counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against Epstein by the government’s promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008 state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein.435 In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the government’s decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255 recovery.
On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein’s Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea hearing, Villafaña contacted Edwards to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña told OPR she “was not given authorization to contact” any victim’s attorney other than Edwards about the scheduled state plea hearing.436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation, Edwards stated that Villafaña “gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all.”
Edwards said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that “Epstein was pleading guilty to state solicitation or prostitution charges involving other victims—not Mr. Edward’s clients nor any of the federally-identified victims.” Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that she “never told Attorney Edwards that the state charges involved ‘other victims,’ and neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a specific victim.” Villafaña told OPR she “strongly encouraged [Edwards] and his clients to attend” the plea hearing but “could not be more explicit” because she was not “authorized by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA.” In his 2017 affidavit, Edwards acknowledged that “Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that way.” Edwards claimed that Villafaña’s failure to inform him that the “guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement” resulted in his clients not attending the hearing. Edwards himself was out of town and not able to
435 As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who had received a subpoena “issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn’t involve most of the victims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed).” Villafaña further observed that because Epstein is “going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim] seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case.”
436 Villafaña’s June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein’s state court guilty plea, Villafaña was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein’s victims. In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, “I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist.” On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform him that PBPD Chief Reiter “is going to notify victims about the plea.” Sloman replied, “Good.”
276
DOJ-OGR-00021478
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document