DOJ-OGR-00021191.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page19 of 258 SA-17 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 17 of 348 2. The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration...........49 E. Villafaña Drafts a “Term Sheet” Listing the Requirements of a Potential Agreement with the Defense.......................51 V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES ...............53 A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which Makes a Counteroffer...............................54 B. In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest .............55 C. August – September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet with Acosta...............................................59 1. Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys .......................59 2. Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence.......................60 3. September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and Sanchez...............................................62 VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED.......................63 A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months .......................63 B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State Attorney...............................................64 C. The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months.......................66 D. The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to Federal Charges .......................68 E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges.......................72 F. Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects .......................73 G. Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges That They “Try to Work It Out” .......................76 H. Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a Final Version to the Defense.......................77 xv DOJ-OGR-00021191