DOJ-OGR-00023029.pdf

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