DOJ-OGR-00021472.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page42 of 217
SA-296
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 296 of 348

the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein’s conduct. Absent information from the USAO,
the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea
proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the
state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised
by Villafaña that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims,
presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing.

Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein’s plea that the
victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta
also told OPR that he expected the state would have “notified [the victims] that that was an all-
encompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was
not proceeding.” There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman
or Villafaña, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever
communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafaña to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney
or to provide the State Attorney’s Office with a complete list of victims identified during the
federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney’s Office that Villafaña
prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but
OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly
released from the State Attorney’s Office. 424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and
Villafaña interacted with the State Attorney’s Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008
plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that
office, and Villafaña’s last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that
the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney’s Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one
from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to
appear at the hearing.

Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it
to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some
discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to
tell them about Epstein’s plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea
hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate.
In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein’s crimes, both
federal and state, “would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an
opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing.”

OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the
plea hearing, and Acosta’s assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately
was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the
Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources,
and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware—through the
prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafaña—that the
USAO’s investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD

424 The text of the letter indicated that Epstein’s attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of “any rights
they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office” and that the USAO was providing the
State Attorney’s Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims “in case you are required to provide them with
any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law.”

270

DOJ-OGR-00021472