EFTA00013543 - EFTA00013544
Internal DOJ email chain from December 2007 discussing the selection of a special master for Epstein victims and ordering a de novo review of the proposed indictment evidence.
This document contains internal prosecutorial communications from December 11-12, 2007, during the critical period when federal prosecutors were negotiating the controversial non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein's defense team. The emails reveal discussions about selecting an attorney to represent Epstein's victims (with 'Bert' Ocariz and attorneys from the Podhurst firm being considered), and importantly, a senior prosecutor ordering a complete 'de novo review' of all evidence underlying the proposed indictment—including 302s, grand jury transcripts, and investigative information. The reference to 'recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence' indicates ongoing pressure from Epstein's high-powered defense team, which included Jay Lefkowitz from that firm.
Key Highlights
- •A senior prosecutor ordered a 'de novo review' (fresh re-examination) of all evidence supporting the proposed Epstein indictment
- •Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's attorney from Kirkland & Ellis, was negotiating the selection of a special master to handle victim representation
- •The document references 302s (FBI interview summaries), state grand jury transcripts, and videotaped interviews as underlying evidence
- •Prosecutors were considering attorneys from the Podhurst firm to represent Epstein's victims
- •A draft letter to Lefkowitz was prepared on December 11, 2007, just weeks before the controversial plea deal was finalized
Frequently Asked Questions
Document Information
Bates Range
EFTA00013543 - EFTA00013544
Pages
2
Document Content
Page 1 - EFTA00013543
From: To: Subject: Re: Epstein Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:11:19 +0000 Importance: Normal Do u think Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld • Fro To: Sen : e ec • Subject: RE: Epstein Yes! I originally nominated Bert, and then Jay asked if he could have a list of people from which to choose. lists of acceptable people (including two people from Podhurst) and he said "Well, we probably should just The problem only started when Bert sent a laundry list of questions that he and the firm's conflicts counsel started trying to set up a conference call. You then raised the Special Master issue, and I agreed that was not involved and there was radio silence as they started communicating only with you. We exchanged stick with Bert." had and we best. Then From Sen • :43 AM To: Sub . . 1 question: page 2, 3rd par. states "since mr. Ocariz had been told that you concurred in his selection ... I informed (him) of the office's decision to use a special master.. ." I'm a little confused - did Jay originally concur with Ocariz? --------- ---------- --- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld O Fro To: Cc: Sen. ue 'ec Subject: RE: Epstein I am out today, but I will start pulling everything together tomorrow. We don't have transcripts of all of the state interviews, but we have audio or videotapes of all of them. I drafted the attached letter, which I would like to send to Jay. «071211 Ltr to Lefkowitz.pdf» EFTA00013543
Page 2 - EFTA00013544
From: Se • • PM To: Cc: Subjec : ps ein In light of the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence_i _I've asked to conduct a de novo review of the evidence underlying the proposed indictment. I've provided =with the proposed indictment package but can you make copies of the 302s , state GJ and interview transcripts, and any other underlying investigative information thatMan review a.s.a.p.? Thanks, EFTA00013544
Entities Mentioned
Statistics
Pages:2
Entities:5
Avg. OCR:0.9%
Sponsored