Epstein Secrets

P-003634 Thru P-003646 File folder bearing victim name containing FBI interview report from May 2008, telephone activity report with attorney (Villafanafia) handwritten notes, related grand jury material Work product Attorney-client privilege 6(e) Investigative privilege Also contains information

08/16/2013 Page 30 of 70 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Victims' Objections Box #2 P409114 Tint P-009115 7/3/2008 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to Col. M. Gauger at PBSO re Epstein work release with attachment [not being withheld as privileged — produced to opposing counsel] N/A Box

Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; Court Compelled Disclosure; Factual Materials; Waiver Box #3 P-013231 Thai P-013239 April 22, 2008 Letter from A. Marie Villafafia to Office of Professional Responsibility re Self-Report of Allegation of Conflict of Interest Privacy Act Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinni

aiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached Suppl. Box 3 P-013866 E-mail, Marie Villafana

ds, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restit

e counsel in this matter.” Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in Epstein’s case. “Glad we could get this worked out for reasons: I won’t put in writing,” Krischer wrote, shortly afte

at were exchanged dealt with prosecutors’ and Epstein’s lawyers’ shared desire to keep the deal secret from Epstein’s accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal. “And can wehave a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to ... the girls regardin

access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the judicial process, which public scrutiny is supposed to safeguard, is just a

ounsel in this matter." Marra quoted an equally pleasant note then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana, who was the lead prosecutor in Epstein's case. "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in writing," Krischer wrote, shortly af

were exchanged dealt with prosecutors' and Epstein's lawyers' shared desire to keep the deal secret from Epstein's accusers. In a September email, Villafana asked Lefkowitz for guidance about what she should reveal. "And can we have a conference call to discuss what I may disclose to ... the girls regar

cess to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 15 ACTIVE 696232185v3 judicial process, which p

puty Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in

Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with expertise in federal law and federal jurisdiction, including a former federal appellate judge, a former United S

ciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings . ..." United States v. Fokker Services B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails s

PBPD brought the case to the FBI’s attention because of a concern that the State Attorney’s Office had succumbed to “pressure” from defense counsel. Villafana informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with them at the start of the federal investigation. Acosta confirmed that he was aware that the

Q3Q117 CA/Ar"l)/L'E\l59PJ.1"\& BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. *27/2023 4:10:49 PM 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th j Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the judicial process, which public scrutiny is supposed to safeguard, is just

have very strong incentives 257 See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1973); United States v. Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006); Newman v. Hopkins, 192 F.3d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999), vacated 529 U.S. 1084 (2000); United States ex rel. Veal v. DeRobertis, 693 F.2d 642, 646- 47 (7th C

phasis added). Courts have held that Brady obligations extend only to prosecutors, because the Supreme Court has not imposed this duty on others. See Villasana v. Wilhoit, 368 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2004). w 4 See Brady, 373 U.S. at 88. w > 162 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1998). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01