EFTA00615559

March 20, 2011 
To whom it may concern: 
I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the 
past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears 
distorted. I thought it appropriate to provide some background, with two caveats: (i) under 
Justice Department guidelines, I cannot discuss privileged internal communications among 
Department attorneys and (ii) J no longer have access to the original documents, and as the 
matter is now nearly 4 years old, the precision of memory is reduced. 
The Epstein matter was originally presented to the Palm Beach County State Attorney. Palm 
Beach Police alleged that Epstein unlawfully hued underage high-school females to provide him 
sexually lewd and erotic massages. Police sought felony charges that would have resulted in a 
term of imprisooment. According to press reports, however, in 2006 the State Attorney, in part 
due to concerns regarding the quality of the evidence, agreed to charge Epstein only with one 
count of aggravated assault with no intent to commit a felony. That charge would have resulted 
in no jail time, no requirement to register as a sexual offender and no restitution for the underage 
victims. 
Local police were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's conclusions, and requested a federa: 
investigation Federal authorities received the State's evidence and engaged in additional 
investigation. Prosecutors weighed the quality of the evidence and the likelihood for success at 
trial. With a federal case, there were two additional considerations. First, a federal criminal 
prosecution requires that the crime be more than local; it must have an interstate nexus. Second, 
as the matter was initially charged by the state, the federal responsibility is. to some extent, to 
back-stup state authorities to misuse that there is no miscarriage of justice, rid not to also 
prosecute federally that which has already been charged at the state level. 
After considering the quality of the evidence and the additional considerations, prosecutors 
concluded that the state charge was insufficient. In early summer 2007, the prosecutors and 
agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein's attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best known 
for his successful defense of William Kennedy Smith. The prosecutors presented Epstein a 
choice: plead to more serious state felony charges (that would result in 2 years' imprisonment, 
registration as a sexual offender, and restitution for the victims) or else prepare for a federal 
felony trial. 
What followed was a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. I use the word 
assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the 
prosecutors in my office, bad previously encountered. Mr. Epstein hired an army of legal 
superstars: Harvard Professor Man Dershowitz, former Judge and then Pepperdine Law Dean 
Kenneth Stan, former Deputy Assistant to the President and then Kirkland & Ellis Partner Jay 
LtfkowiU, and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. 
EFTA00615559

Attorney's Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. 
Defense attorneys next requested a meeting with me to challenge the prosecution and the terms 
previously presented by the prosecutors in their meeting with Mr. Black. The prosecution team 
and I met with defense counsel in Fall 2007, and I reaffirmed the office's position: two years, 
registration and restitution, or trial. 
Over the next several months, the defense team presented argument after argument claiming that 
felony aiminal proceedings against Epstein were unsupported by the evidence and lacked a basis 
in law, and that the office's insistence on jail-time was motivated by a zeal to overcharge a man 
merely because he is wealthy. They bolstered their arguments with legal opinions from well-
known legal experts. One member of the defense team warned me that the office's excess zeal in 
forcing a good man to serve tune in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to 
proceed with this matter. My office systematically considered and rejected each argument, and 
when we did, my office's decisions were appealed to Washington. As to the warning, I ignored 
it. 
The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues. Defense counsel investigated individual 
prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for 
disqualification. Disqualifying a prosecutor is an effective (though rarely used) strategy, as 
eliminating the individuals most familiar with the facts and thus most qualified to take a case to 
trial harms likelihood for success. Defense counsel tried to disqualify at least two prosecutors. I 
carefully reviewed, and then rejected, these arguments. 
Despite this army of attorneys, the office held Grm to the terms first presented to Mr. Black in 
the original meeting. On June 30, 2008, after yet another last minute appeal to Washington D.C. 
was rejected, Epstein pled guilty in state court. He was to serve 18 months imprisonment, 
register as a sexual offender for life and provide restitution to the victims. 
Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher. Evidence that has come to light 
since 2007 may encourage that view. Many victims have since spoken out, tiling detailed 
statements in civil eases seeking damages. Physical evidence has since been discovered. Had 
these additional statements and evidence been known, the outcome may have been different. But 
they were not mown to us at the time. 
A prosecution decision must be based on admissible facts known at the time. In cases of this 
type, those arc unusually difficult because victims are frightened and often decline to testify or if 
they do speak, they give contradictory statements. Our judgment in this case, based on the 
evidence blown at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time m jail, register 
as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of 
success. I supported that judgment then, and based on the state of the law as it then stood and the 
evidence known at that time, I would support that judgment again. 
Epstein's treatment, while in state custody, likewise may encourage the view that the office 
should have been tougher. Epstein appears to have received highly unusual treatment while in 
jail. Although the terms of confinement in a state prison are a matter appropriately left to the 
EFTA00615560

State of Florida, and not federal authorities, without doubt, the treatment that he received while 
in state custody undermined the purpose of a jail sentence 
Some may also believe that the prosecution should have been tougher in retaliation for the 
defense's tactics. The defense, arguably, often failed to negotiate in good faith. They would 
obtain concessions as part of a negotiation and agree to proceed, only to change their minds, and 
appeal the office's position to Washington. The investigations into the family lives of individual 
prosecutors were, in my opinion, uncalled for, as were the accusations of bias and / or 
misconduct against individual prosecutors. At times, some prosecutors felt that we should just 
go to trial, and at times I felt that frustration myself. What was right in the first meeting, 
however, remained right irrespective of defense tactics. Individuals have a constitutional ny,lit to 
a defense. The aggressive exercise of that right should not be punished, nor should a defense 
counsel's exercise of their right to appeal a U.S. Attorney to Washington, D.C. Prosecutors must 
be careful not to allow frustration and anger with defense counsel to influence their judgment. 
After the plea, I recall receiving several phone calls. One was from the FBI Special Agent-In-
Charge. He called to offer congratulations. He had been at many of the meetings regarding this 
case. He was aware of the tactics of the defense, and he called to praise our prosecutors for 
holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black, Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr. It was a proud 
moment. I also received calls or communications from Messrs. Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and 
Starr. I had known all three individuals previously, from my time in law school and at Kirkland 
8: Ellis in the mid 90s. They all sought to make peace. I agreed to talk and meet with each of 
them after Epstein pled guilty, as I think it important that prosecutors battle defense attorneys in 
a cast and then move on. I have tried, yet I confess that has been difficult to do fully in this case. 
The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire, served time in jail and is now a 
registered sex offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution, though restitution 
clearly cannot compensate for the crime. And we know much more today about his crimes 
because the victims have come forward to speak out. Some may disagree with the prosecutorial 
judgments made in this case, but those individuals me not the ones who at the time reviewed the 
evidence available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success. 
Respectfully, 
R. Alexander Acosta 
Former U.S. Attorney 
Sothem District of Florida 
EFTA00615561