Epstein Secrets

it is whether they can require the defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reaso

without substantiation, that the proposed State plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year te

t to seek that particular sentence does not change the fact that the sentence was available to the State and rejected in its discretion. Therefore, Petite's presumption that the State of Florida's prior prosecution of Mr. Epstein has vindicated the federal interest cannot be said to have been overcome

secution Agreement stated: "after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that the interest of the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the following procedure [contained in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement)." See e.g., September 17, 2007 email from M. Vill

the defense and State Attorney’s Office, or at least indicated agreement pending Acosta’s approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman’s, Menchel’s, Lourie’s, and Villafaña’s involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of Acosta. Under OPR’s analytical framework, an attorney who

n, Lourie, and Villafaña were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at 134 different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in formulating the USAO’s initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions or decisions made

so Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). 206 OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña failed to comply with professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their repres

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.

in a suite prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the federal interest will not he vindicated in the absence of a Iwo year term in state prison." See August 3.2007 letter. Such an arti

as of traditionally local concern. we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prOSCCUtiall Was appropriate. However, on August 3. 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a su

your Office: IT APPEARING, idler an invizligation of the offenses and Epstcin's background, thin the interest or the United Stales pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the Following procedure ... Epstein understands that the United Stales Attorney has no authority to require the Slate Atto

a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon StItA.L55fili completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." Sec August 3. 2007 letter. Such an art

eas of traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution was appropriate. However, on August 3, 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a st

y your Office: IT APPEARING, alter an inv.:30101km of the ulTenses and Upslein's background, that the interest of the United States pursuant to the Petite policy will be served by the hallowing procedure . . . Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the State At

ussed above, restitution 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

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