EFTA00009116

Page 339
1 aware it existed, whatever its status might have been?
2 A So, again, it was clearly submitted. It was
3 clearly referenced.
4 Q ME-hmm.
5 A And it was clearly part of the complaint. The
6 complaint -- the heart of the complaint about our office was
7 that we were using this agreement to impose civil liability.
8 And so, I think it is fair to infer if the complaint
9 implicates the agreement, that the agreement would have been
10 reviewed.
11 Q That -- but that's your inference. You don't have
12 any -- you don't -- didn't have any specific communications
13 with ODAG --
14 A I don't --
15 Q -- to that effect?
16 A I don't recall a specific communication.
17 Q All right. Okay. I would like to take a short
18 break. We're getting there.
19 A I hear you.
20 Q There is --
21 A I'm good.
22 Q -- one area that my colleague, will
23 take on --
24 A Mm-hmm.
25 Q -- which has to do with the CVRA
EFTA00009155

Page 340
1 A Right.
-- and then we have some kind of wind up questions.
3 A Okay.
4 Can we -- before we take a break,
MR. IIIIIIII
5 can I just --
6 MS. Yes.
IIIIIIII/
7 MR. IME I'll try to queue up what's going to
8 be coming next --
9 THE WITNESS Mm-hmm.
10 MR. -- and maybe that'll help us move
11 through it, because --
12 THE WITNESS Right.
13 MR. -- you've been through a very long
14 day.
15 THE WITNESS Yeah.
16 MR. We appreciate your -- the time
17 you've put into this. You've been here for quite a long
18 time.
19 THE WITNESS Well, yeah.
20 BY MR.
21 Q The area that I want to discuss after the break has
22 to do with the ultimate notification to the victims about the
23 resolution of the case, the state plea, and the result of the
24 federal investigation, and there's going to be -- we have
25 documents that are in your -- that are already marked there
EFTA00009156

Page 341
1 that might be helpful if you take a look at a couple of them
2 so we don't have to go through -- maybe during the break so
3 we don't have to go through them one by one, or I can just
4 give you a very quick overview of sort of where we're going.
5 / want to find out basically how you were getting
6 from there -- what would be the -- the state asking for the
7 U.S. Attorney's Office to make the notification to the
8 victims about the upcoming state plea that happens in
9 November of 2007.
10 That would be document 32b, to the defense then
11 finding out that the government want to notify the victims by
12 letter, and then demanding that they see the letter and have
13 some kind of comment on it. That would be document 33, an e-
14 mail from Lefkowitz.
15 Then we have an exchange of letters, but the one
16 I'd like you to look at is document 37, which is a letter
17 coming from to the defense -- not now, but you know,
18 during the break. So, I want to find out how we get from
19 that document, 36, where is writing --
20 MS. 36.
21 BY MR.
22 Q -- as letter saying that -- citing the CVRA
23 regulations saying that the government is obligated to notify
24 the victims about the resolution of the case, and attaching a
25 draft letter to the victims telling them the time and date of
EFTA00009157

Page 342
1 the state resolution and plea, inviting them to come.
2 To ultimately a letter from you coming on the 19th
3 of December 2007, which is No. 41b agreeing to not notify the
4 victims of the state plea, and agreeing with the defense to
5 have the state be responsible for putting out that
6 notification.
7 And then we end ultimately with a letter or draft
8 letter that we have that goes out to the victims in the case
9 on -- after the plea in July. Well, we have the draft I'm
10 going to show you, which comes in June, showing that the
11 letter was clearly meant to be sent after the plea as per the
12 agreement, and that is document number 51.
13 A Okay. That's --
14 Q So, it's a lot to --
15 A That's a --
16 Q -- unpack there.
17 A That's a lot to unpack. We should probably take it
18 a step at the time?
19 Q Yes. I just wanted to --
20 A All right.
21 Q -- give you an overview, because I think that some
22 of what you had mentioned earlier -- and I know -- I know
23 it's --
24 A Yeah.
25 Q -- been a long time, so --
EFTA00009158

Page 343
1 A Yeah.
2 Q -- I'll try to orient you for the timelines. So,
3 if you'd just have a -- I've highlighted the sections of
4 those letters that we want to talk about, and if you have a
S chance while we're taking a break to look through them, that
6 may help orient you so that we're not --
7 A Right.
8 Q -- spinning our wheels on this. I don't want to
waste any of your time.
10 A Fair.
11 MS. : All right. Off the record.
12 (Off the record.)
13 MS. : All right. Back on the record.
14 MR. : Are we back on the record?
15 MS. : Yes.
16 BY MR.
17 Q Okay, great. So, I know I gave you a lot to unpack
18 over the short break we just had. One -- basically what
19 we're trying to get to find out is how the -- your decision
20 making process regarding the victim notification issue. So,
21 maybe if you could just give us a -- anything with your
22 December 19th decision, could you give us an explanation
23 about how you got there?
24 A So, I think we should probably take this in stages.
25 Q Okay.
EFTA00009159

Page 344
1 A As a general matter, I recall that there was back
2 and forth regarding -- after the agreement -- regarding how
3 to notify the victims, and there was back and forth between
4 and Jay Lefkowitz and around all that.
5 Sorry, I'm losing my voice.
6 I recall that there was an issue in particular that
7 was raised that I tried to address in the letter, and I
8 recall at the end of the day, it was my impression that once
9 there was an agreement for him to plead, that there was an
10 attempt by to provide notice to the victims, but it was
11 a very -- it was I think on a Friday, and he was pleading on
12 a Monday morning or something along those lines.
13 And finally, I recall that the view of the office
14 was that the CVRA did not apply, and so that this was a
15 discretionary balancing that included consideration of what
16 impact notification of the 22.55s would have at trial -- the
17 22.55 provision, if we had to go to trial. So, we can -- we
18 can unpack that, but those are my -- my general
19 recollections.
20 g Okay.
21 A And look, let me -- let me add, I -- so, I think
22 it's important -- so, I came in and out of the case at
23 stages, and -- and I was involved in certain aspects more
24 than others, and while we had a long discussion about the
25 terms sheet and matters like that, while I was clearly
EFTA00009160

Page 345
involved in at least one dispute around the 22.55, the nuts
2 and bolts of how victims were notified is not something that
3 I have a recollection about.
4 Q Okay. Fair.
5 A But we can unpack it.
6 Q Okay. Let's start with the Exhibit 33. So, there,
7 we have an -- as you can see, it's an e-mail from Lefkowitz -
8
9 A Mm-hmm.
10 Q -- to you, and to ISM, objecting to the
11 letter being sent to the victims, unless the defense gets to
12 review it. And later on in some of your other
13 correspondence, you discuss that you -- you extended to the
14 defense the courtesy of allowing them to review these
15 letters. Is this the genesis of that courtesy?
16 A I can't -- I don't have a recollection as to what
17 the genesis might be. I know that there was back and forth
18 between our office and the defense about the -- that letter.
19 Q Okay, but as you can see on 33 that you're not on
20 the response from but instructs to
21 send the proposed letter to Lefkowitz, and --
22 A Yeah.
23 Q -- I assume that wouldn't have done that had
24 you objected to it.
25 A Again, I don't -- I don't recall any specific
EFTA00009161

Page 346
1 conversation. As a general matter, this is not something I
2 was getting into the weeds on unless I had to. There was a
3 lot of back and forth.
4 Q MM-hmm.
5 A a is someone that I trusted. He was handling
6 this matter. He's incredibly experienced. I know that there
7 were concerns and issues around the impact that notification
8 would have on the witnesses. I know there were -- there were
9 issues around the language, and I trusted that folks were
10 working those out.
11 Q Mm-hmm. One of the -- the criticisms that's come
12 post, you know, the CVRA --
13 A Right.
14 Q -- litigation that's been the government allowing
15 the defense to have review of these letters, or potential
16 victim notification letters coming out of the government, and
17 that that's unusual. Have you ever -- have you had any other
18 cases where you've let the defense review such documents?
19 A I've had no other cases where I'm even aware of
20 victims being notified, because I assume it all operates
21 without it rising to management level.
22 Q MM-hmm.
23 A And so this is the first and only time that how
24 individuals are notified, to my recollection, was even in the
25 executive suite.
EFTA00009162

Page 347
1 Q Mm-hmm. Isn't that usually done -- accomplished by
2 almost a computerized task?
3 A I -- I would assume so, so yes.
4 Q And it's a -- given that that's the usual way that
5 notifications are made by a victim witness specialist, who is
6 usually that person?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Do I have that right? And so, the FBI has their
9 victim witness specialist?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And your office, the U.S. Attorney's Office has
12 dedicated people who do that job as well?
13 A Correct.
14 Q So, why in this case, not direct, the -- this --
15 this notification to that person to be done in the usual
16 course, why elevate to something that the defense is going to
17 be able to review?
18 A So, so, I can't address the second half of that,
19 but the first half of that question, why -- why was it
20 elevated? You know, I think addressed some of that in
21 her, was it 2017 affidavit, and -- and so, we had an
22 agreement that had been signed, and we also had substantial
23 questions as to whether that agreement -- whether ultimately
24 Jeffrey Epstein would plead in court or not.
25 And so, one of the questions is, how do you deal
EFTA00009163

4
Page 348
1 with notification of a possibility, where that possibility
2 could be used to impeach potential future witnesses who are
3 also the victims, and that is a matter that was being worked
4 out by the AUSAs in the office.
5 Q And the -- and the impeachment is what?
6 A And so, the impeachment -- and I -- I would -- :
7 believe went into it in some detail, is you stand
8 you, Miss Victim, stand to gain quite a bit of money if
9 there's a conviction, correct?
10 Isn't -- weren't you aware of this agreement, if we
11 have to go to trial? Weren't you aware of this agreement?
12 And this isn't based on my recollection. This is based on
13 the affidavit, where she says that she had concerns
14 that the impeachment go along -- somewhere along the lines
15 of, were you aware that if Mr. Epstein's convicted, you stand
16 to receive substantial sums? Yes. Were you influenced by
17 this?
18 And there was some -- according to her affidavit,
19 this isn't my independent recollection, this is according to
20 her affidavit, there had already been dispositions of the
21 victims -- of at least some of the victims that raised these
22 issues. And so, I do think it was a valid concern by the
23 AUSAs how these notifications took place.
24 Q Okay, but isn't that the -- that type of line of
25 cross examination the same for any case where there's a super
EFTA00009164

Page 349
1 wealthy defendant?
2 A It may be. The 22.55 may make it a little
3 different because it's automatic, but ultimately, these are
4 the judgements that line attorneys make, and as U.S.
5 Attorney, I think it's appropriate to back up their judgment
6 unless there was some reason for me to believe it was
7 incorrect.
8 Q Was there any thought ever to just giving the
9 victims notification that there will be a proceeding that
10 will end the federal case, just separating that in a -- maybe
11 a later notification about the 22.55?
12 A I can't speak to what thought there was or was not.
13 I can say around this time frame, it was far from clear that
14 there would ever be -- that Epstein would ever go into court,
15 and we were thinking we may have to just go to trial, because
16 these collateral attacks keep going.
17 Q Okay. Okay. Let's get back on track to the -- the
18 question that I asked earlier about allowing the defense the
19 courtesy to look at these letters. Is -- can you just remind
20 us again, what was -- what was the reasoning that you're --
21 that they're allowed to look at the --
22 A So --
23 Q -- victim notification letters?
24 A I can't speak to that. This is something that --
25 that and would have handled. I think that, you
EFTA00009165

Page 350
1 know, I'm responsible for the office. I'm not shirking, I'm
2 just saying that this is -- that this was for the most part
3 within their wheelhouse, and not something that -- that I was
4 involved in. I can -- I can speculate.
5 Q Sure.
6 A The agreement was notifying them -- the letter was
7 notifying them of certain rights in the agreement, and
8 therefore, this is a time when we weren't sure what was
9 happening with the agreement. And so, perhaps this was a way
10 to -- to address some of the concerns around the 22.55. I
11 don't know. I'm just speculating.
12 Q Okay. Let's move onto Exhibit 36. This is a
13 letter that goes out to Lefkowitz under signature.
14 You are cc'd on the letter.
15 A All right.
16 Q And what he is doing is sending a draft victim
17 notification letter, which is attached as the attachment
18 there, dated December 6th, 2007. And I wanted to get your
19 impressions of -- if you go to page three of the letter,
20 please? And that -- the first little paragraph there, when
21 it --
22 A Mm-hmm.
23 Q -- refers to the Victims' Rights and Restitution
24 Act, and then ultimate for the CVRA, if you could just read
25 that paragraph to yourself, please?
EFTA00009166

Page 351
1 A Are you referring to paragraph 10?
2 Q I'm sorry, I'm not on the -- I'm on the letter,
3 not -- I'm sorry, I'm on the --
4 A Oh.
5 Q -- left -- the letter to --
6 A Sorry.
7 Lefkowitz, not the draft letter. This one right
8 here.
9 A The additionally?
10 Q Yes, additionally, pursuant to the Victims' Rights
11 and Restitution Act of 1990, our office is obligated,
12 etcetera.
13 A Okay.
14 Q Do you agree with that language? That
15 interpretation of the victims' rights, as far as the
16 notification?
17 A So, let's -- let's sort of take this -- this one
18 sentence at a time. With respect to notification of other
19 information that we were supposed to disclose, the statute
20 requires that we provide victims with the earliest possible
21 notice of -- I -- I will assume that that is a restatement of
22 the statute.
23 I don't have it in front of me, but let's assume
24 that that's a restatement of the statute. Just as in 18,
25 these sections are not limited to -- the victims, through
EFTA00009167

Page 352
1 this federal -- should be appropriately informed that a non-
2 pros does not require to forego its legal obligation. On a
3 sentence by sentence basis, I mean, do I agree, sitting here?
4 Sure, but I would want to sort of sit down before I gave a
5 legal opinion and spent more time with it, but --
6 Q Okay, because coming out of your office, sort of
7 this and that -- well, let's go to the next page, page four.
8 A Yeah.
9 Q There is a citation to the right to confer in the
10 first paragraph there, citing the CVRA's reasonable right to
11 confer with the attorneys of the government in this case.
12 A Okay.
13 Q So, we have -- you know, it looks like to me -- I
14 mean, let's --
15 A Right.
16 Q -- well, it -- it appears that there is two
17 references to the CVRA obligations that the government has
18 that ultimately the government argues that it did not have.
19 Can you explain why that is a correct interpretation?
20 A So, what I can say is I recall -- so, it looks like
21 at least some of the victims were notified. I recall a
22 discussion and a view that the CVRA did not require it -- it
23 was discretionary, because it wasn't -- the case had not
24 indicted, so it did not attach on its terms. That doesn't
25 mean that it's not something you aspire to. That just means
EFTA00009168

Page 353
1 it wasn't legally binding.
2 Q So -- and in the same manner though, while the CVRA
3 isn't legally binding, it also doesn't prevent you from
4 notifying the victims, does it?
S A It does not, no.
6 Q And you have the discretion to notify, should you
7 choose to.
8 A Correct.
9 Q Okay. And so, if you look at the letter that's
10 attached to this, this is a draft that goes out where on page
11 one -- two -- page three of the letter, and the second to
12 last paragraph, the letter is giving notice of Mr. Epstein's
13 change of plea and sentencing that will occur on -- well, at
14 this time, it was December 14th at 2007, and it gives the
15 address, and it says underneath there you are entitled to be
16 present and make a statement under oath.
17 If you choose, you can submit a written statement
18 under oath, etcetera, etcetera. So, this is a letter that's
19 actively inviting victims to come to the state. Would you
20 agree that that's inviting victims to come to the state plea?
21 A That -- I think that's fair.
22 Q And with the letter's reasoning that the government
23 is sending -- would like to send this letter because it
24 believes it's obligated to, because it resolves the federal
25 case?
EFTA00009169

Page 354
A So, I -- I don't want to speak to the reasoning,
2 but it's clearly a draft that the government is saying, it
3 intends to send.
4 Q Okay. Now, ultimately, just this is not a
5 question, just --
6 A Got it.
7 Q -- some information that will help to move us
8 along.
9 A Right.
10 Q The -- obviously, this letter is never sent. Ms.
11 drafts, we have them, and I'm not going to show
12 them to you, 30 letters, copies of the letter
13 A Right.
14 Q -- to different victims, addresses them, puts them
15 in envelopes, and is then told not to send the letters.
16 A All right. Well, the plea never -- it's scheduled
17 for December 14th, so yeah.
18 Q Yes, but one of the issues that's still percolating
19 until the end of December is who is going to make this
20 notification? Because as you can expect, the defense pushes
21 back on this letter.
22 And so now we go to the -- the -- number 39,
23 please? And this is a December 11th, 2007 letter from Ken
24 Starr to you, and if you look on page two, at the front -- at
25 the top of the -- the top of the page there, he is -- this
EFTA00009170

Page 355
1 letter is complaining about an oral notification that Ms.
2 gave to a -- one of the defense -- one of the
3 victim's attorneys that a letter would be coming.
4 And so, Mr. Starr is writing you to complain about
5 it, and he mentions in -- later in that paragraph that we
6 have thought that the notification process had been in
7 abeyance until completion of our ongoing discussions with
8 respect to that process. So, were you having discussions
9 with Mr. Starr about the process at this time?
10 A I don't recall discussions. I -- I think there was
11 at least correspondence, or -- I'm sorry, where are you? I
12 was reading the -- reading the letter. This -- I'm sorry,
13 where are you? What paragraph?
14 Q Let's take a look -- and it's been a long day.
15 Let's slow down here. We're on the second page of the Starr
16 letter.
17 A Yes.
18 Q And it would be this and that, the -- the language
19 in there -- in the second sentence, which goes towards the
20 bottom.
21 A This notification, but quite apart from our
22 substantive concerns, which -- we had thought the
23 notification process had been in abeyance until the
24 completion. That appears not to be so. This is
25 respectfully -- so, where does it imply that I was having
EFTA00009171

Page 356
1 I don't recall communications with Mr. Starr, that's why I'm
2 curious where -- at least verbal communications. I'm curious
3 where you're reading that from.
4 Q I thought he -- he's saying, we had thought that
5 the notification process had been held in abeyance until
6 completion of our ongoing discussions. Are you saying that
7 that's -- he's --
8 A So, I don't know where that may have come from, and
9 I don't recall. I recall at one point -- I think I sent a
10 letter saying we'll hold off for a week. I don't recall the
11 date of that letter, while you review some matters. Where
12 the abeyance came from, I can't -- I can't speak to.
13 Q Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 41b. This is your
14 December 19th letter, and what I'd like to draw your
15 attention to is page two, the second to last paragraph there.
16 A Yes.
17 Q So, could you tell us how your decision making
18 around this paragraph, how you got to this decision?
19 A So, so, you're asking me to recreate -- I -- at
20 some point, the issue clearly moved from interacting
21 with defense counsel to -- to my desk, and my recollection 12
22 years after the fact is -- so, you're saying we shouldn't
23 notify them about the state proceeding, and sure, the
24 state -- this was negotiated between Epstein and the state
25 attorney.
EFTA00009172

Page 357
1 We did not direct the state proceeding. So,
2 whatever state process is appropriate for the state process
3 will be given. But with respect to the federal resolution,
4 we intend to provide victims with notice of the federal
5 resolution as required by law, and your question is if we
6 thought it was discretionary.
7 I recall our believing it was discretionary, but
8 you could also -- it doesn't hurt to in a letter say we're
9 kind of required to do this, and I think it was the right
10 thing to provide them notice of the federal resolution.
11 And once that resolution was reached, and part of
12 the key word is what the resolution is, my understanding is
13 that made efforts to notify victims of that resolution
14 and let them know that -- that there would be a hearing the
15 following Monday, that they should attend, because these --
16 it would bring an end to the case.
17 Q Well, let's just back up real quick. As far as --
18 so, do you -- as far as the state attorney notifying people
19 of -- victims of the --
20 A Right.
21 Q -- state resolution, did you have any concerns with
22 that particular part of it?
23 A So, difficult to recreate the thought process 12
24 years later, but ultimately you've got federal, and you've
25 got state, and the state attorney will do what the state
EFTA00009173

Page 358
1 attorney thinks is appropriate. It's not for me to direct
2 the state attorney.
3 I'm inferring, based on this language, it's not for
4 me to direct the state attorney, or for our office to direct
5 the state attorney's office on its obligations with respect
6 to the state outcome.
7 Q Okay. I'm just asking because, you know, the whole
8 case came to your office because of some issues with the
9 state attorney's resolution of the case. So, now it's going
10 back, and they're going to be in charge of the notification.
11 Did that raise any flags with you, or did you have any
12 concern about whether it would be done correctly, or done at
13 all?
14 A So, again, you've -- I -- this has come up in
15 different contexts, and I think it's -- there was obviously a
16 concern about how it was being charged, but that doesn't mean
17 that they will not fulfill whatever obligations they have.
18 Let's not assume that -- that the state attorney's office is
19 full of bad actors.
20 Q Okay.
21 BY MS.
22 Q But even if not assuming that they're full of bad
23 actors --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- it's going to be difficult for them to notify
EFTA00009174