EFTA00009116

Page 359
1 the victims, wasn't it, that they didn't even necessarily
2 know the same list as the federal victims, because you had
3 found more victims.
4 A So, we could certainly have shared that list with
5 them. I mean, there are -- there are ways that this could
6 have happened. I don't know how -- what the communication
7 were, but as a conceptual matter, having the state notify
8 them of the state hearing and having the federal government
9 say, and this is the federal resolution, is consistent with
10 the law.
11 Q But since the federal resolution is tied to the
12 state plea, is -- why not just combine the two of them in the
13 notification? Here's the federal resolution. We're tying it
14 to the state plea, and here's --
15 A Right.
16 Q -- the date of the state plea?
17 A I can't speak to the why not. I can -- you know, I
18 can speak to my belief that this would be consistent with
19 law. That could also be one approach. I can't speak to why
20 A versus B.
21 Q Did somebody instruct you that -- or did you have a
22 conversation consulting with somebody about whether this was
23 the better approach?
24 A I -- I would have said -- you know, based on
25 practice -- not recollection, but based on practice, I would
EFTA00009175

Page 36C
1 have sat down with , most likely, since he was handling
2 this matter, and we would have talked about it. I would
3 not have sent this without running it by at least if
4 not other individuals in the office. I don't know if based
5 on your record there is -- there's e-mails with drafts, but
6 you know, every document that I'm aware of was sort of shared
7 within the management team, and this would have been one of
8 those.
9 Q With respect to that one specific decision about
10 this should be at the discretion of the state's attorney, did
11 you consult with anybody in D.C. about that issue?
12 A I don't recall consulting with someone in D.C.
13 about this issue. I recall a general perspective that the
14 CVRA as a technical matter did not attach because ultimately
15 this was not -- it hadn't -- this was not an indictment.
16 BY MR.
17 Q Oh, can we -- before we leave this letter --
18 A If I could, I -- I -- and I understand your
19 questions, but I feel some obligation to raise the tension
20 between, did you consult in D.C. versus should you allow D.C.
21 review.
And so, just, you know, we certainly were allowing
23 review, but U.S. Attorney's Offices don't consult on every
24 matter, especially offices that have the kind of
25 experience --
EFTA00009176

Page 361
1 MS. Mm-hmm.
2 THE WITNESS -- that Miami does.
3 MR. Back to me?
4 MS. in Mm-hmm.
5 MS. Mm-hmm.
6 MS. : Back to you.
7 BY MR.
8 Q Before we finish with this latter from the 19th,
9 can we look at page three, please? There is -- if you could
10 read the first paragraph on page three to yourself, please?
11 A Okay.
12 Q Could you -- in that section, you mention that
13 prosecutors had asked you to declare a breach, and you
14 resisted. Can you discuss that?
15 A So -- sure. That's -- that's referencing -- I
16 think increasing frustrations by the -- by the prosecutors,
17 and I think that's reflected in contemporaneous e-mails
18 saying, why don't we just rip this up?
19 And I recall conversations with and that goes
20 a little bit to what we talked about earlier, which is
21 concern that a unilateral breach would overlay not just the
22 initial issues that we had, and not just the fact that the
23 victims are getting older and the case isn't getting better,
24 but then we have, was the unilateral breach a valid breach,
25 or was it not a valid breach?
EFTA00009177

Page 362
1 And is -- is the delay justified or not justified.
2 And ultimately, that additional -- that additional
3 liability -- not liability, that additional legal uncertainty
4 was -- would have made the case even harder, because they
S were very careful to always say there is no breach.
6 MS. Mm-hmm.
7 THE WITNESS Let me -- let me address, because I
8 went on to read the next paragraph as well. And so let me
9 circle back to an earlier issue --
10 MR. Great.
11 THE WITNESS -- because I at least want to address
12 it because the next paragraph then says, and it's clear that
13 I'm increasingly frustrated. It's against that -- that my
14 frustration with it appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks
15 before the now scheduled July 4th plea date. That said, the
16 issues raised are important and must be fully vetted
17 irrespective of timelines concerns. We hope to preserve the
18 July 4th date.
19 I understand defense counsel shares our -- with
20 this in mind, and in the event the defense counsel may wish
21 to seek review of our determination in Washington, I spoke
22 this past Monday with Attorney Gen confirming if it's
23 possible appearing to ask her to grant the potential request
24 for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited
25 manner in an attempt to preserve the July 4th date.
EFTA00009178

Page 363
1 MR.IIIIF: January 4th.
MS. : That address -- January.
3 THE WITNESS I'm Sorry, the January 4th plea date.
4 Sorry, it's --
5 BY MS.
6 Q And that addresses the question I was asking.
7 A And that goes to the question you're asking, and
8 again, I'm recreating and I'm speculating. Having that
9 following the -- another 11th hour appeal here, I would say
10 I -- I wouldn't say, let's appeal this again. I think I'm
1 saying pretty clearly, it's against my frustration with what
12 appears to be an 11th hour appeal weeks before the now
13 scheduled July -- January 4th plea date that this is not an
14 invitation to do another appeal, because the appeal is
15 already in Washington.
16 But my -- my saying, if -- if we're going to do
17 this appeal, let's get it over and done with, then I'm sort
18 of speculating based on the language, so that we can get this
19 pled on January 4th, and let's not put it off until after the
20 holidays.
21 Q But you did say, "To ask her to grant the potential
22 request," --
23 A Which is --
24 Q -- "for review."
25 A Which is why I wanted to on my own raise it,
EFTA00009179

Page 364
1 because is that saying please appeal me, or is that saying --
2 this is an 11th hour appeal that you have now taken to
3 Washington.
4 It is December 19th. We're about to go into the
5 holidays. There's a January 4th plea date. This should not
6 be another way to put it off. And so, if you're going to do
7 this, I'm going to try to expedite it so we can get this
8 done.
9 Q And in fact, it took until May --
10 A Yeah.
11 Q -- 15.
12 A And it did, and apologies, I just realized my voice
13 is --
14 Q All right.
15 A -- rising. So, I don't know if that's my
16 frustration at reading this again, or it's getting late, but
17 it -- but it was a frustrating matter. Apologies.
18 BY MR.
19 Q Let's just move to Exhibit 46. So, this is an e-
20 mail from Ms. to you and discussing how she
21 has interviewed some victims that day. There's a mention
22 that one of the victims said that she would rather not get
23 any money and she'd have she would rather have Epstein
24 spend a significant time in jail. Did that piece of
25 information go into your character list at all about how the
EFTA00009180

Page 36
1 case should be resolved?
2 A So, again, not based on recollection, because this
3 is maybe if not 12, 11 years ago.
4 Q Okay.
5 A But at this point, there had been an agreement.
6 The agreement was signed. It was being reviewed. Based on
7 this e-mail, we're trying to get and expedite the criminal
8 division, because I -- I see it says please reach to to
9 make her decision.
10 And I -- I think at this point, as I said, if --
11 we knew earlier -- if we knew that it was going to go this
12 long and take all of this, I think we may have approached the
13 case differently, but we were so far along on this, there was
14 a signed agreement.
15 The United States can't unwind an agreement just
16 because it's frustrated, or just because some victim
17 indicates that they don't like it. That's not -- you know,
18 if the agreement is not legally valid, if there are some
19 other concerns, but I don't think this in and of itself would
20 have been grounds for unwinding an agreement.
21 Q Do you think it's misleading for the government to
22 have been interviewing these witnesses and preparing them for
23 a trial when there's already a signed NPA that resolves the
24 issue?
25 A So, that was part of the judgement that there's a
EFTA00009181

Page 366
1 signed agreement, but based on the course of conduct, is that
2 agreement really an agreement that will be honored? And so
3 there was an ongoing investigation as well, because we didn't
4 know if we'd go to trial, and I know that -- not I know.
5 My recollection is that the judgement was until we
6 know that this agreement is really going to be performed
7 fully, that to inform victims of the possibility of civil
8 recovery is problematic, and -- and I can't say that
9 judgement's incorrect. That -- I think that's a valid
10 judgement.
11 Q Fair enough, and then the last question on this e-
12 mail is at the bottom, Ms. invites you to attend
13 interviews with four of the girls who would be coming in the
14 following day.
15 A Mm-hmm.
16 Q Did -- did you attend?
17 A I -- I did not, and as U.S. Attorney, I don't think
18 I attended -- that's not -- that wasn't typical for our
19 office.
20 Q Would -- was that ever -- had you ever had that
21 type of request come from a line assistant?
22 A Not to my recollection, but I also tended not to
23 have communications come from line assistants in the first
24 place.
25 Q Were you at all curious, given the -- you discussed
EFTA00009182

Page 367
1 the issues with the witnesses in this case --
2 A Right.
3 Q -- that, potential impeachment, and that -- you
4 know, that caused you to -- that went into the negotiation
phase. Did you have any interest in seeing these people --
6 even interacting with them personally so you could make your
7 own assessment?
8 A So, any interest is --
9 Q Would there be value in doing that?
10 A So, we had very experienced prosecutors. It's not
11 just interacting with the -- the -- the victims were in a
12 really hard position. It's not -- how I would draw a
13 distinction between a victim being interviewed by an agent,
14 and how a victim holds up in court, in a public setting under
15 cross examination, and in that, I don't think anyone in the
16 office was questioning the pain or the suffering of the
17 victims. I think that the issues were how would they hold up
18 in court, which are uniquely trial issues.
19 Okay. Then let's move onto what what what
20 was your understanding that -- that the federal government
21 was going to do as far as the notification about the
22 resolution of the case?
23 A So, my understanding was that once we believed that
24 the case was going to be -- that the -- that the plea was
25 going to go forward, that we would notify the victims of the
EFTA00009183

Page 368
1 resolution, and of the agreement, and how -- basically, how
it played out.
3 Q Now, are you saying now -- now, you had agreed to
4 not notify -- well, did you -- I mean, you're -- one would
5 read your December 12th -- 19th letter as an agreement that
6 the federal government is not going to notify the victims of
7 the state plea. That's -- and that will end that part of the
8 case. Is that correct?
9 A So, so, I would parse my letter differently, and
10 this is 12 years after the fact, and so this isn't based on
11 recollection, but on my reading and my understanding of the
12 course of conduct in this case, sitting here now.
13 Q Me-hmm.
A My understanding was that our office was
15 notified -- was it on a Friday afternoon?
16 Q Yes.
17 A That he would be pleading on Monday, and that at
18 that time, made efforts to notify victims that he would
19 be pleading, and that that would terminate the federal
20 resolution of this matter, and that the victims should attend
21 that hearing, which wasn't the state resolution of the case.
22 It was the federal resolution.
23 Q And so, you -- you're saying that the state plea
21 was also the federal resolution of the case?
5 Based on my understanding of what happened, that's
EFTA00009184

Page 369
1 how my recollection -- based on having reviewed the record,
2 that's how I believe it proceeded, although I think
3 attempted to do so, couldn't reach some attorneys, and
4 exercised best efforts to let them know, but did not get
5 ahold of all of the victims --
6 Q Let's --
7 A -- over the weekend.
8 Q Before we get too deep into that, let's just take a
9 quick look at Exhibit 51. So, this is an e-mail forwarded to
10 you from from January -- June 25th, 2008. So, that is
11 five days prior to the plea in this case.
12 A Yes.
13 Q Or, the state court plea, and the attachment there,
14 you'll notice is a letter with a notification of identified
15 victims, and the letter is written, would you disagree --
16 it's written with, on June 30th, Epstein pled guilty. Do you
17 see that?
18 A Yes.
19 Q So, the inference -- it appears to be that this
20 letter was to be sent after the plea.
21 A I -- I see that. I also -- based on my review of
22 the record, where I think I'm recalling the
23 affidavit, where she said that she made an attempt to notify
24 the victims as soon as she was made aware that he would be
25 pleading -- that he would be pleading in state court.
EFTA00009185

Page 370
1 Q Well, the -- what says in affidavit --
2 A Correct.
3 Q -- I believe is that she made notification, and the
4 police department -- Chief police department made
5 notifications. Is that -- is that correct? Does that ring a
6 bell?
7 A
8 MR. TODD: Do you have a copy of the affidavit, so
9 we can just look at it?
10 MR. : Do you have affidavit e-
11 mail?
12 MS. : It's right here. One copy.
13 THE WITNESS I'll hand it back.
14 MR. : Almost done.
15 THE WITNESS So, relevant to this paragraph 34, and
16 then another paragraph, these and other attacks and efforts
17 to avoid the NPA's terms led the FBI investigative team, the
18 office, and me to conclude that prosecution at trial remained
19 a possibility, and we should prepare as such.
20 This meant that the victim notification letters had
21 to cease, because one, we no longer knew whether Epstein
22 would perform under the NPA, and hence, we did not know
23 whether providing information about the NPA would be
24 accurate, until we believed that Epstein, through his
25 counsel, would attempt to use victim notification concerning
EFTA00009186

Page 371
1 the NPA to suggest that victims had been encouraged by the
2 FBI or the office to overstate the victimization for monetary
3 compensation. And then fast forwarding because you can read
4 it on your own.
5 On Friday, June 27th at approximately 4:15,
6 received a copy of Epstein's proposed state plea agreement,
7 and learned that Epstein's state court change of plea was
8 scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday.
9 The Palm Beach Police Department and I attempted to
10 notify the victims about the hearing in the short time
11 available to us. I specifically called to Attorney Edwards
12 to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing.
13 I believe it was during this. I never told that
14 the state charges involved other victims, and neither the
15 state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer
16 limited the procurement of prostitution charges to a specific
17 cell.
18 So, that was what I was referring to. Again,
19 am -- I am basing this based on my review of the affidavit
20 and not on recollection of how this may or may not have
21 proceeded 12 years ago.
22 Q Okay. You know, would it surprise you to learn
23 that Ms. only communicated with Mr. Edwards that
24 day? That's because she was under the direction from a
25 manger to only contact Edwards regarding this -- the
EFTA00009187

Page 372
1 potential plea for that Monday?
2 A The affidavit said she attempted to notify the
3 victims, so I can't speak to that.
4 Q Okay.
5 A And I don't have an independent recollection of
6 this going back 12 years.
7 Q Were you aware that Ms. was directed to
8 have no communication with the state's attorney's office, and
9 probably during the later period of the case in 2008?
10 A Not to my recollection.
11 Q Okay, so did you have -- would you not recall
12 hearing anyone directing her to not communicate with the
13 state attorney's office?
14 A I can't speak 12 years later, what role I may or
15 may not have had. I question how, if we need -- if there is
16 a -- an attempt to schedule a plea in all that, how can there
17 not be communication? But I can't -- I can't say whether I
18 did or did not. When I say I have no recollection, I mean
19 that in the broadest sense of the word.
20 Q Okay. In your December 19th letter, you -- you did
21 agree that the state attorney's office would notify the
22 state's victims, right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And do you have any idea how that was to be
25 accomplished?
EFTA00009188

Page 373
1 A I can't speak to that, no.
2 Q And would you have any knowledge of who the state
3 victims are?
4 A I would infer that -- that our office would have
5 had sufficient communication with the state attorney's office
6 to communicate who the victims were in this case, because it
7 was an ongoing -- it was an ongoing matter, and -- but I
8 don't know.
9 Q Do you want to go on?
10 MS. Okay. Are you -- are you done with
11 your -- that portion at least, for the moment?
=mg
12 MR. Yes. Thank you.
13 BY MS.
14 Q I'd just want to clarify something you said a
15 moment --
16 A Sure.
17 Q -- ago, Mr. Acosta. You said you referred to the
18 agreement, the NPA, as having been -- it was signed and was
19 being reviewed. Were you talking about Washington?
20 A Right.
21 Q The criminal division, but we established earlier,
22 did we not, that the NPA was not the subject of the criminal
23 division review. They expressly declined to review it.
24 A I stand corrected.
25 Q Okay. I just wanted to be clear on the record.
EFTA00009189

Page 374
1 Thank you. So, we -- we've had a lot of conversation about
2 facts. We are fortunate in this case to have a plethora of
3 documents upon which we can rely even 12 years or so after
4 the fact, and we've tried to plum your -- the depths of your
5 memory as to the events.
6 Are there any facts -- any conversations, any
7 incidents, anything based on the questions that you've heard
8 here today that you recall, have recalled, that you want to
9 tell us about, want us to know?
10 A So, give me a minute to just sort of think this
11 through.
12 Q Of course.
13 A I think we've covered most of the issues pretty
14 clearly. I guess I would have two general comments. The
15 first is, whether folks agree or disagree with the initial
16 two years, you know, registration and restitution.
17 The office's focus was on having Mr. Epstein go to
18 jail at a time when, from our perspective, these -- these
19 cases were, at least presented with these facts, federally at
20 least unusual, and that most trafficking cases involved
21 different -- a different sort of nexus.
22 It involved bringing individuals into the country,
23 or holding individuals against their will, or doing something
24 like that, and -- and this will go to my second point which
25 is, you know, sitting here, we now see several high profile
EFTA00009190

Page 375
1 individuals who abused power, and have now been prosecuted --
2 who were known at the time who abused drugs, like Bill Cosby
3 and -- who were -- there were rumors at the time, and you
4 know, and -- and so, looking back, maybe it was the right
5 call.
6 Maybe it wasn't the right call, but there is some
7 degree of -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is.
8 Frustration, that -- and certainly, some of this goes to me,
9 but I think a lot of this goes to and the individuals
10 involved, that the attempt to put someone in jail as opposed
11 to decline the case and say this is just a state case,
12 that -- that the -- that the federal issues are too tricky,
13 that ultimately, this is sort of novel interpretations, that
14 the attempt to come up with an outcome has rebounded in the
15 way that it has, and I'm not -- I'm not saying, look, that
16 that's life, and I understand that.
17 But I do think it's important to look back on this,
18 and try to be in the shoes of the thought process in 2006 and
19 '07 when trafficking prosecutions were fairly new, when, you
20 know, more so than today, some jurors may have looked at this
21 as prostitution, and were -- perhaps more so than today --
22 judge's tolerance for victim shaming may have both caused
23 more hesitation on the part of victims, but also created more
24 issues at trial. And so, I think we've touched on that, but
25 I think as we sort of wrap up --
EFTA00009191

Page 376
1 Q MM-hmm.
2 A -- this portion of it, it's important to just
3 restate that.
4 Q And -- and to -- in addition, are there any facts
5 that you -- conversations, or anything that you --
6 A Fair, you did ask this.
7 Q -- that we have -- that we've not really elicited
8 from you that you want us to know? And to be clear, you'll
9 have an opportunity to --
10 A Right.
11 Q -- supplement this.
12 A Not that I can think of
13 Q All right.
14 A -- sitting here.
15 Q All right. How do you respond to public criticism
16 that the defense attorneys -- the Epstein defense team, were
17 gaining extraordinary access to an influence on prosecutors
18 from the line level all the way up through the department?
19 A So, I would point out early on in the case -- when
20 I said early, you pushed back, but from my perspective, early
21 on in the case. Not when it was first investigated, but when
22 it first bubbled up for decision.
23 Q And that would be mid-2007?
24 A Mid-2007. June-ish, May to June 2007, May, June,
25 July. We determined, here are -- here is what we'd need for
EFTA00009192

Page 377
resolution. And I -- I think I addressed some of this in the
2 Daily Beast's letter.
3 Q Mm-hmm.
4 A Because we were receiving criticism back then, and
5 I think that letter has been misconstrued to some extent,
6 because it was not, oh, here are influential people, we're
7 backing off.
8 It was, we, early on, set three criteria. Two
9 years, registration, restitution. Despite all these
10 attorneys, despite all these appeals, despite all these
11 efforts, the office did not budge with the caveat of the 24
!2 to 18 months, which we've discussed, and from my perspective,
13 despite all of that, I backed the office in sticking by that
14 resolution in the various appeals to Washington.
15 And so ultimately, it was a year-long process, but
16 we ended up a year later exactly where we started with the
17 caveat of the 24 to 18. And so, to the extent that there was
18 influence, there was -- there was no change in position.
19 Q Well, my question was access. That this team of
20 defense attorneys --
21 A Right.
22 Q -- had extraordinary access, that they asked for
23 meetings, they --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- pressed for -- with communications, and they had
EFTA00009193

Page 378
that access. Was -- did that seem extraordinary to you?
2 A So, they asked for a meeting with me before the
3 agreement was signed.
4 Q Mm-hmm.
5 A I granted that. That's not the first and only time
6 that I granted a meeting to -- to defense attorneys. I don't
7 think it's atypical, particularly as a case is coming to --
8 to resolution for a U.S. Attorney to sit down and meet
9 with opposing counsel, and I can think of several cases where
10 that happened There was certainly a lot of access in
11 Washington. I would speak to -- you know, I think that's a
12 question to direct to this building.
13 Q MM-hmm.
14 A Because the process here was lengthy, and
15 frustrating. But I think we successfully held firm in our
16 positions, despite all the process in this building.
17 Q And again, my focus is not on your response, but on
18 the access.
19 A And --
20 Q Based on the prominence and the -- the prominence
21 of the defense attorneys. If these had been local attorneys,
22 your sort of average criminal defense attorney from, you
23 know, name where they hang out in --
24 A Right.
25 Q -- Miami coming to you and pressing for this, you,
EFTA00009194