Epstein Secrets

those changes. Criminal Chief participated in numerous meetings on the case, and had private conversations regarding resolution of the matter with Lilly counsel to Mr. Epstein. Ms. had formerly served as Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section at the USAO while Mr. was Chief of Major Crimes. As

e was insufficient evidence to charge him with any offense; (b) there was no basis for federal prosecution and that federal prosecution violated the Petite policy; (c) I had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the investigation and resolution of the matter; (d) Jeff had engaged inprosecutorial

in child exploitation cases was an issue of growing concern, so I was mindful that this plea mechanism that Criminal Chief Menchel had devised with Lilly Ann Sanchez would extinguish, the victims' right to restitution. That was one of the reasons why, on July 4, 2007, I wrote to Mr. Menchel that I be

e was insufficient evidence to charge him with any offense; (b) there was no basis for federal prosecution and that federal prosecution violated the Petite policy; (c) I had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the investigation and resolution of the matter; (d) Jeff Sloman had engaged in prosecu

strict of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for Lewis, and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewis’s law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez, a former AUSA who had been Menchel’s deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta’s personal involv

ngle forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved.” If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General for resolution.