EFTA00225672

a. 
How old was Jane Doe #14 during this period? And what is 
the sexual activity that she and JE engaged in that also 
violated El. Stat. 794.05? [Sexual intercourse btwn adult over 
24 and a minor.] 
D. 
JANE DOE #15 (ME Z.) 
1. 
Who is Jane Doe #15? Have you testified about her previously? 
a. 
Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding 
your earlier testimony? 
2. 
Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane 
Doe #15 have contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
4. 
Please summarize the sexual activity that she was involved in with 
JE? 
5. 
Does your prior testimony and testimony here today cover the 
evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 132-148, 175? 
6. 
Let's refer to Count 9. Is the evidence ou 'list summarized the basis 
for the allegation that JE, SIC, and 
procured Jane Doe 
#15 to engage in commercial sex acts 
owing at she was under 
18? 
7. 
Let's refer to Count 20. Is the evidence ou just summarized the 
basis for the allegation that JE, SK, and 
used a 
facility of interstate commerce to persua e, m uce, an entice Jane 
Doe #15 to engage in prostitution? How many telephone calls have 
you been able to document between Jane Doe #15 andn 
And 
how many telephone calls between Jane Doe #15 and oss 
E. 
JANE DOE #16 MI 
D.) 
1. 
Who is Jane Doe #16? Have you testified about her previously? 
Page 9 of 11 
EFTA00225852

document between Jane Doe #10 and a? 
VIII. OTHER BACKGROUND INFO 
A. 
Background re defendants and intro section — February 6, 2007 NK 
Transcript and May 8, 2007 NK Transcript pp. 17-end. 
B. 
ASK ABOUT ITEMS TO BE BROUGHT FOR FINAL 
PRESENTATION - MASSAGE BEDS!!! 
C. 
JANE DOE #14 t
 E.) 
1. 
Who is Jane Doe #14? Have you testified about her previously? 
a. 
Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding 
your earlier testimony? 
2. 
Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane 
Doe #14 have contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
4. 
Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #14 was involved 
in with JE? 
5. 
Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the 
evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 112-131? 
6. 
Let's refer to Count 8, Is the evidence you just summarized the basis 
for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #14 to engage in 
commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 
7. 
Let's refer to Count 19. Is the evidence you just summarized the 
basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate 
commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #14 to engage in 
prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged 
with an offense? How many telephone calls have you been able to 
document between Jane Doe Nand ICellen? 
Page 8 of 11 
EFTA00225853

commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 
7. 
Let's refer to Count 15. Is the evidence you just summarized the 
basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate 
commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #9 to engage in 
prostitution and in sexual activity for which a person can be charged 
with an offense? How many telephone calls have you been able to 
document between Jane Doe #9 and M? 
8. 
What was the activity for which a person could be charged with an 
offense [Vaginal intercourse between an adult over 24 and a 16 or 17 
year old minor — violates Pl. Stat. 794.05] 
B. 
JANE DOE #10 (a 
B.) 
1. 
Who is Jane Doe #10? Have you testified about her previously? 
a. 
Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding 
your earlier testimony? 
2. 
Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane 
Doe #10 have contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
4. 
Please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #10 was involved 
in with JE? 
5. 
Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the 
evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 67, 74, 78-79, 81, 
84-89, 147? 
6. 
Let's refer to Count 5. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis 
for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #10 to engage in 
commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 
7. 
Let's refer to Count 16. Is the evidence you just summarized the 
basis for the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate 
commerce to persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #10 to engage in 
prostitution? How many telephone calls have you been able to 
Page 7 of I1 
EFTA00225854

I. 
Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt 
acts 3245? 
J. 
Let's refer to Count 3. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for 
the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #4 to engage in 
commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 
K. 
Let's refer to Count 13. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for 
the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to 
persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #4 to engage in prostitution? 
VII. 
TESTIMONY REGARDING GIRLS ALREADY COVERED IN GRAND 
JURY — JANE DOES 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 (Alex, i, 
, 
and 
Ashley) 
A. 
JANE DOE #9 (Alex H.) 
1. 
Who is Jane Doe #9? Have you testified about her previously? 
a. 
Is there anything that you want to clarify or add regarding 
your earlier testimony? 
2. 
Please remind the grand jury, during what period of time did Jane 
Doe #9 have contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
4. 
And please summarize the sexual activity that Jane Doe #9 was 
involved in with JE? 
a. 
Was she involved in sexual activity with any of the other 
defendants? 
5. 
Does your prior testimony and your testimony today cover the 
evidence supporting the allegations in overt acts 66-73, 75-77, 80-83, 
and 90? 
6. 
Let's refer to Count 4. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis 
for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #9 to engage in 
Page 6 of 11 
EFTA00225855

JE's recruiting requests? Were there girls whom Jane Doe #3 brought to 
Epstein's home whom he didn't like? Did he allow them to massage him? 
I. 
Did he ever become frustrated when JD#3 wasn't able to find a young girl 
for him? 
J. 
Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in overt 
acts 19 through 31? 
K. 
Let's refer to Count 12. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis for 
the allegation that JE and SK used a facility of interstate commerce to 
persuade, induce, and entice Jane Doe #3 to engage in prostitution and in 
sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense? 
[Florida violations — Jane Doe #3 was under the age of 16 when she was 
involved with Epstein, so he could be charged with lewd and lascivious 
molestation, lewd and lascivious conduct, and lewd and lascivious 
exhibition based upon his touching of Jane Doe #3's breasts and genitals, 
his solicitation of Jane Doe #3 to commit a lewd and lascivious act, and his 
masturbation and exposure of his genitals in her presence.] 
VI. 
JANE DOES #4, 5, and 6 
H., 
C., and 
a
 
P.) 
A. 
Who are Jane Does #4, 5, and 6? Have you testified about them 
previously? 
B. 
Have they been interviewed? In addition to their statements, who else 
provided information regarding Jane Does #4, 5, and 6? 
C. 
During what period of time did Jane Does #4, 5, and 6 have contact with 
JE? 
D. 
How old were they during that time frame? 
E. 
What sexual activity did Jane Does #4 and #5 engage in with JE? 
F. 
Did either of them take anyone else to JE's home? 
G. 
What sexual activity was Jane Doe #6 involved in with JE? 
H. 
Did she take anyone else to JE's home? 
Page 5 of 11 
EFTA00225856

4. 
How did she meet JE? 
5. 
And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 
6. 
How much was she paid for performing sexual massages for JE? 
7. 
Did she recruit any of the other Jane Does to go to JE's home? 
8. 
Please take us through the evidence supporting the overt acts related 
to Jane Doe #2. 
9. 
What did Jane Doe #2 say about whether JE knew her age? 
10. 
Who would contact Jane Doe #2 to make appointments? How would 
she be contacted? 
11. 
Does your testimony cover the evidence supporting the allegations in 
overt acts 1 through 18? 
12. 
Let's refer to Count 2. Is the evidence you just summarized the basis 
for the allegation that JE and SK procured Jane Doe #2 to engage in 
commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18? 
JANE DOE #3 (IMI 
W.) 
A. 
Who is Jane Doe #3? Have you testified about her previously? 
B. 
Has she been interviewed? 
C. 
During what period of time did Jane Doe #3 have contact with JE? 
D. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
E. 
How did she meet JE? 
F. 
And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 
G. 
How much was she paid? 
H. 
Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? What did she tell you about 
Page 4 of 11 
EFTA00225857

2. 
Remind the grand jury how the telephone records were obtained and 
whose telephone records were obtained. Were there any records that 
you tried to obtain that you couldn't? 
3. 
Have you pulled the telephone records that contain the telephone 
calls referred to in the indictment? And did you bring them with 
you? Have you marked in any way the telephone bills that reference 
the calls listed in the indictment? And in reviewing those billing 
records, what information will the grand juror's find? (Telephone 
number called. Time and date of call. Call length.) 
. TAKE A BREAK 
BEGIN TESTIMONY REGARDING THE GIRLS 
IV. 
JANE DOES 1 and 2 
A. 
Who is Jane Doe #1? 
1. 
Has she been interviewed? In addition to her statements, who else 
provided information regarding Jane Doe #1? 
2. 
During what period of time did Jane Doe #1 haye contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
4. 
How did she meet TO 
5. 
And what sexual activity was she involved in with JE? 
6. 
Did she recruit anyone to go to JE's home? 
B. 
Who is Jane Doe #2? 
1. 
Has she been interviewed? In addition to her statements, who else 
provided information regarding Jane Doe #2? 
2. 
During what period of time did Jane Doe #2 have contact with JE? 
3. 
How old was she during that time frame? 
Page 3 .of 11 
EFTA00225858

first known contact with Mr. Epstein) 
b. 
S/A Kuyrkendall: Which of these girls has the grand jury 
already heard testimony about? 
2. 
• Go over how chart is organized 
a. 
S/A Kuyrkendall• What does each column refer to? 
3. 
Generally review references to transcript pages 
a. 
S/A Kuyrkendall: What does the list of transcript pages refer 
to? How was that•list created? 
B. 
Go through the allegations in the Introductory Section of the Indictment. 
Summarize evidence that hasn't already been presented (I think just the 
high school allegations) 
C. 
Hand out flight chart 
1. 
What does this chart refer to? What does each column mean? 
2. 
Flip to a few overt acts and read the text aloud. What is the evidence 
in support of these allegations? (Flight manifests) 
3. 
Remind the grand jury how the flight manifests were obtained. 
4. 
So, for each flight referenced in the overt acts, what evidence was 
relied upon? And did you bring those flight manifests with you? 
Let's mark those manifests as Composite Grand Jury Exhibit 
Number JE-1. 
There are several dozen manifests contained within Exhibit JE-1. 
Have you marked in any way the manifests related to the flights 
referenced in the indictment? And in reviewing those manifests, 
what information will the grand jurors find? [Airplane used. Date. 
Departure airport. Arrival airport. Arrival time. Passenger names.] 
D. 
Discuss telephone records 
1. 
Flip to a few overt acts and read the text aloud. What is the evidence 
in support of these allegations? (Telephone records) 
Page 2 of 11 
EFTA00225859

9-- 
GRAND JURY PRESENTATION 
0 742 .
OPERATION LEAP YEAR 
L 
INTRODUCTION 
I Q -
1
2 
/ 
A. 
New Indictment 
1. 
Summarize Changes 
2. 
Summarize Current Charges 
3. 
Review Law/Instructions 
4. 
Go through legal allegations in introduction 
B. 
Summarize How the Evidence Will Be Presented 
1. 
Chart 
2. 
Break Overt Acts into Two Categories: 
a. 
Meetings/Sexual Activity — Grouped by victim — Testimony 
re Interviews with the Girls 
b. 
Plights — Manifests 
C. 
Take Questions 
D. 
Call Special Agent Kuyrkendall 
IL 
RETURN DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS 
ISSUED SINCE THE LAST DOCUMENT RETURN. 
A. 
Have additional subpoenas been issued on behalf of this grand jury 
regarding Operation Leap Year? And have documents been received in 
response to those subpoenas? What subpoenas were issued and what items 
were received? Did you bring those records with you today? 
KUYRKENDALL SUBSTANTIVE TESTIMONY 
A. 
Hand out summary chart 
1. 
Review renumbering of Jane Does 
a. 
S/A Kuyrkendall: Can you explain to the grand jury how the 
Jane Does have been renumbered? (They were numbered to 
try to appear in a more chronological order depending on their 
Page 1 of 11 
EXHIBIT B-29 
EFTA00225860

• 
Page 49 
nonexistent. Moreover, federal statutes that focus on sexual activity with minors focus on truly 
interstate phenomena such as child pornography, human trafficking, Internet luring, and sex 
tourism. Here, Mr. Epstein engaged in local activity that does not implicate any broader federal 
concern. Mr. Epstein faces punishment for that conduct under Florida law. There is no need to 
add additional federal penalties grossly disproportionate to his alleged behavior. 
F. 
The Petite Policy Dictates Federal Declination of This Case. 
In conclusion, we believe that the Petite Policy clearly dictates a federal declination in 
this case for the following reasons: First, the Petite Policy (which the federal prosecutors have 
acknowledged is applicable here) was triggered by the initial plea agreement with the State 
Attorney's Office, which was not executed solely because of the pending federal investigation. 
Second, there is no evidence of corruption, undue influence, or incompetence by the State's 
Attorney's Office. Third, the presumed bar to a dual prosecution has clearly not been overcome. 
Fourth, there was no coordination with State prosecutors, which led to confusion of the issues 
and a flawed and overreaching Deferred Prosecution Agreement. 
• 
EFTA00225861

• 
• 
0
 
Page 48 
evidence. But Ms. Belohlavek later informed Mr. Epstein's counsel that solicitation of minor is 
not a registerable offense and that § 796.03 ' a procurement statute that has no application to 
Mr. Epstein whatsoever. See e.g., Register 
State, 715 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) 
( 
("The Florida Legislature has designated suc an act of solicitation as a less severe crime than 
exploiting a minor to engage in sexual activity with a third party, to the procurer's financial 
advantage'). 
It is obvious from federal prosecutors' first documented plea proposal that 
'solicitation of a minor' is and always has been the appropriate charge under the facts (this is 
also the State's recommended charge). What is now apparent is that federal prosecutors believed 
that solicitation of a minor was both a felony and registerable charge under Florida law. They 
were wrong. 
Had federal prosecutors coordinated with State authorities, they would 
(presumably) not have fallen into this manifest legal error.22
In addition, federal prosecutors insisted that they dictate every detail of the State sentence 
pursuant to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Once again, this was done without any 
coordination with the State. Federal prosecutors went so far as to demand a restriction on the 
judge not to be able to offer probation, community control or any other alternative that the judge 
might order in lieu of incarceration. See Executed Deferred Prosecution Agreement, 12(a), 
Exhibit 33. This is classic overreaching violative of the Petite Policy's imperatives. Not 
satisfied with simply dictating the terms and conditions of Mr. Epstein's incarceration, federal 
prosecutors then attempted to send a highly inaccurate Victim Notification Letter to their list of 
alleged victims of federal crimes (all except three of whom had no connection to the State 
prosecution) and encouraged them not only to attend the State plea and sentencing proceeding 
but to make public statements against Mr. Epstein before the judge. See Victim Notification 
Letter, Exhibit 37. Yet again, this was also done without consulting the State Attorney's Office. 
We understand that that Office was not given the identities of these alleged victims and had no 
idea that federal prosecutors intended to send such letters to these individuals. 
E. 
Traditional Elements Of Proper Prosecutorial Discretion Do Not Favor 
Prosecution Here. 
Even assuming that the Department could bring charges, it should decline as a matter of 
prosecutorial discretion. The relevant factors are set forth in Section 9-27.230 of the United 
States Attorney's Manual, and those factors counsel against prosecution. Mr. Epstein has no 
criminal history of any kind. Given the unique nature of any prosecution (which would be 
unprecedented as a federal matter), any general deterrent effect is likely to be minimal or 
22 Furthermore, in the Victim Notification Letter that she intended to send to all the alleged federal victims, Ms. 
Villafana erroneously stated that under Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein would have to register as 
"sexual predator" as opposed a "sexual offender" for the remainder of his life. See Victim Notification Letter, 
Exhibit 37. That is not true—under the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Mr. Epstein need only register as a 
sexual offender, a classification that is far less grave than that of a sexual predator and which carries far less 
onerous conditions. Sec Executed Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 33. 
EFTA00225862

• 
Page 47 
• 
• 
important in this instance as federal prosecutors and State prosecutors clearly have a different 
view of the merits of this case. 
However, there was no such consultation by federal 
prosecutors with their State counterparts. 
Federal prosecutors never contacted the State Attorney's Office, let alone attempted to 
coordinate efforts, despite the fact that the State prosecutors have over a decade of experience in 
prosecuting State matters and sex related crimes in particular.21 Federal prosecutors ignored Ms. 
Belohlavek's view of the case, despite the fact that she interviewed many of the witnesses in 
connection with the State investigation. 
Because of a lack of communication by federal prosecutors, the State Attorney's Office 
was left to accept the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which contained overreaching conditions 
including a mandatory period of incarceration and sex offender registration. Without a single 
meeting or phone call with State prosecutors and without ever sharing with them the evidence 
that would justify such an action, federal prosecutors insisted that the State accept that the 
charges be raised and the sentence enhanced. 
It is telling that the failure by the federal prosecutors to coordinate with the State 
Attorney's Office led to confusion of the issues as well misrepresentations regarding the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Under the agreement, which was drafted without consultation 
by federal prosecutors with the State Attorney's Office, Mr. Epstein was to plead guilty to an 
indictment charging one count of solicitation of prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.07, and 
to one count of procuring a minor for prostitution under Florida Statute § 796.03. Given the 
commercial nature of the conduct generally associated with § 796.03, a defendant convicted 
under this statute must register as a sexual offender under Florida's Sex Offender Registration 
and Notification Act (the "Florida's Sex Act"). 
However, Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct did not actually meet the requirements of § 
796.03, a charge for which federal prosecutors had no facts to support. Since inception and at 
the time § 796.03 was negotiated between the parties, Ms. Villafana erroneously maintained that 
a § 796.03 charge involved the solicitation—and not the procurement—of a minor. See July 31, 
2007 Draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 36 ("solicitation of minors to engage in 
prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. 796.3 . . .'). During those negotiations, Mr. Epstein's 
counsel repeatedly asked Ms. Villafana to confirm that she possessed the requisite evidence to 
make out a this charge, to which she unwaveringly replied that she did in fact possess this 
21 Federal prosecutors went to such great lengths to avoid coordinating with the State that they even asked Mr. 
Epstein's counsel to provide them all of the documentation provided to the State, including the transcripts of 
each witnesses' testimony. In addition, rather than consult with the State Attorney's Office directly, federal 
prosecutors effectively conscripted Mr. Epstein and his counsel to convince the State to agree to both a harsher 
charge and sentence in connection with its proposed plea agreement, both of which the State believes may not 
necessarily apply to Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. 
EFTA00225863

• 
Page 46 
• 
• 
his right to challenge any of the allegations of these alleged victims, restricting his right of 
discovery to a single question: "have you ever met Mr. Epstein?".20
At bottom, certain federal prosecutors disagree with minor aspects of the deal made by 
duly-authorized State prosecutors. 
But federal prosecution is manifestly not appropriate 
whenever reasonable minds disagree about a specific punishment. Rather, the plain text of the 
Petite Policy requires that there be a demonstrable, manifest, and substantial difference between 
State and federal outcomes in order to justify a successive federal prosecution. That is, textually, 
a daunting standard. If Mr. Epstein's sentence is manifestly inadequate and leaves the federal 
interests in prosecuting solicitation demonstrably unvindicated, then so does every other sentence 
handed out by the State on similar facts. Indeed, the conduct here can be compared to that of 
Barry Kutun, a former North Miami city attorney accused of having sex with underage 
prostitutes and videotaping the sessions. Mr. Kutun pleaded guilty on May 18, 2007 in a Miami-
Dade County courtroom as part of an agreement with State prosecutors, and he received five 
years probation and a withhold of adjudication with no requirement to register as a sex offender. 
It is unclear why federal prosecutors—who declined to federally prosecute Mr. Kutun despite the 
fact that his conduct is more egregious than that of Mr. Epstein—believe that State prosecutors' 
treatment of Mr. Epstein alone somehow leaves the federal interest substantially unvindicated. 
Given the number of sexual crime cases prosecuted in Palm Beach County, either the 
Department ought to declare the State Attorney's Office in federal receivership--or it should 
acknowledge that Mr. Epstein is being treated differently from other similar offenders. 
C. 
The Conduct At Issue Does Not Constitute A Federal Offense. 
The Petite Policy requires that the government believe that the defendant's conduct 
constitute a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain 
and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. But a federal conviction is unlikely as a 
matter of both law and fact. As a matter of law, the identified federal statutes do not apply for 
reasons detailed above. See supra at part II. As a matter of fact, the sworn testimony of the 
witnesses in this has case has definitively refuted any basis for a federal conviction. 
D. 
Federal Prosecutors Did Not Coordinate With The State. 
Quite apart from its substantive prerequisites, the Petite Policy also requires coordination 
with State authorities. See U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A ("federal prosecutors should, as soon as 
possible, consult with their state counterparts to detennine the most appropriate single forum in 
which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved, and, if possible, to 
resolve all criminal liability for the acts in question.") 
Such consultation is particularly 
20 This despite the fact that the state restitution statute, like the state prostitution statute, fully covers the conduct 
alleged and provides a well-established method for civil recovery. 
EFTA00225864

• 
Page 45 
examined case should not warrant sex offender registration. State prosecutors carefully assessed 
this case, including personally interviewing many of these witnesses, and they carefully 
considered Mr. Epstein's background and mitigating factors—most notably, that Mr. Epstein did 
not use coercion, alcohol, drugs, or violence; that Mr. Epstein held no position of authority in 
connection with these girls; and that Mr. Epstein passed a lie detector test and psychosexual 
evaluation. The State sentence thus reflected sound prosecutorial judgment, and was well-
grounded in the 
entire circumstances of the case and the treatment of similar first-time 
offenders. 
• 
• 
In short, given the local conduct at issue, and the reasoned judgment of State prosecutors 
that State sex-offender registration was not necessary, there was no basis for suggesting that the 
absence of State sex-offender registration demonstrably failed to vindicate federal interests. Not 
only was this articulation for the need for registration a violation of the Petite Policy, it was a 
clear violation of well-settled law mandating that registration cannot be used as a form of 
punishment. Kansas' Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 362 (1997); Johnson' State, 795 So.2d 82, 87 
(Fla. App. 5th Dist. 2000) ("Analogous to the cited Federal cases, the legislative intent of the 
Florida Sexual Offender notification and registration requirement is not intended to be punitive, 
but is designed to be remedial in nature..."). 
Nor can federal prosecutors' concern for compensating victims justify their intent on 
prosecuting Mr. Epstein federally. Once federal prosecutors made clear that a primary goal of 
the federal investigation was a federal compensation proposal, the defense submitted one that 
consisted of terms harsher than Mr. Epstein's conduct warranted under prior federal precedents. 
In addition to the well-established state restitution statute, the defense offered a federal proposal 
that was similar to the resolution in the Boehm case, where the conduct was far more egregious. 
There, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; 
admitted to knowing that the girls were underage; arranged for them to have sex with other 
members of the conspiracy in exchange for drugs; and possessed illegal firearms at the time of 
the alleged conduct. The defense proposal was open-ended with no monetary cap. But the 
federal prosecutors also ruled that out. Instead, federal prosecutors pressured Mr. Epstein to 
agree to provisions in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement that seem to have been designed to 
provide financial benefits to alleged victims who cannot qualify under Section 2255, because 
they testified that they did not suffer any type of harm, nor could they be victims of violations of 
Sections 2422(b) or 2423 (a prerequisite for recovery under Section 2255). Notably, federal 
prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 to an 
unnamed list of women they referred to as minors—Mr. Epstein's counsel later established that 
all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Those same prosecutors also 
demanded that Mr. Epstein pay the attorneys' fees for these alleged victims should they choose 
to bring any further civil litigation against him. They further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive 
EFTA00225865

• 
Page 44 
case involving the murder of a federal official." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. To put it mildly, that 
egregious example is a far cry from the situation at hand. 
Instead, the federal prosecutors' disagreement with the State's plea agreement boils down 
to a dispute over where Mr. Epstein initially would be incarcerated: The State believed that a 
longer sentence of supervised custody (which is a more onerous form of house arrest) and the 
potential for a longer sentence of imprisonment is adequate punishment for Mr. Epstein, while 
federal prosecutors insisted on a shorter period of traditional imprisonment and no supervised 
custody. There was no objective basis for believing that either of those punishments was 
demonstrably better or worse than the other. And the suggestion that the proposed State plea 
agreement was "manifestly inadequate" simply because the State Attorney's Office and federal 
prosecutors disagree about the location and manner in which Mr. Epstein would be confined both 
undermines Petite's strong presumption against successive prosecutions and is inconsistent with 
the Policy's requirement that a prospective federal prosecution offer the availability of a 
"substantially enhanced sentence." In short, the specific location of a defendant's confinement—
particularly one who is not an ongoing danger to the community under the conditions of the 
proposed State agreement—does not concern any federal interest, let alone a substantial one. As 
a result, it provided no basis for pursuing a successive federal prosecution.19
The remaining points of disagreement between federal prosecutors and their State 
counterparts likewise are too insignificant (or, indeed, irrelevant) to support a successive federal 
prosecution in this matter. For instance, while federal prosecutors have expressed concern that 
the State plea agreement does not require Mr. Epstein to register as a sex offender in Florida, that 
is not an appropriate consideration under Petite. After all, the Policy focuses on the prospect of 
obtaining "substantially enhanced" forms of punishment in order to vindicate federal interests, 
and given that the federal government does not itself require "Johns" to register as federal sex 
offenders, it is hard to see how State-law sex-offender registration can fairly be characterized as 
necessary to vindicate a federal interest—much less how its absence leaves the federal interest 
"demonstrably unvindicated." Instead, federal prosecutors have told defense counsel that the 
only reason for their insistence that Mr. Epstein register as a sex offender in Florida is to "give 
the FBI a bone" for its work on the federal investigation. Needless to say, that is not an adequate 
justification for initiating a successive prosecution under Petite. 
Moreover, State prosecutors appropriately exercised their judgment, based on years of 
experience, in determining that the evidence and the entire circumstances of this closely-
• 
• 
19 In rejecting the State's proposal and demanding incarceration in lieu of supervised custody one federal 
prosecutor disparagingly noted that house arrest in Mr. Epstein's case would amount to what would be seen by 
the public as "mansion arrest". Such reasoning had no bearing on the Petite analysis and clearly violated Mr. 
Acosta's stated policy of horizontal equality. Treating Mr. Epstein differently from any other similarly charged 
individual simply because of his wealth directly contravenes this policy. 
EFTA00225866

• 
Page 43 
Moreover, although the actual sentence agreed with the State Attorney's Office was less 
than the maximum available to the State, the Petite Policy indicates that this should not be a 
relevant consideration. Petite does not ask federal prosecutors to compare the sentence achieved 
in a prior State prosecution (here, two years of supervised custody with a possibility of two 
years' imprisonment) against what they hope to achieve in a successive federal prosecution 
(here, eighteen months of guaranteed imprisonment). Instead, it focuses on whether federal law 
makes "available" certain forms of punishment that were not "available" in the prior State 
proceedings—like "forfeiture and restitution," rather than mere "imprisonment and fines." 
U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D ("The presumption may be overcome even when a conviction was 
achieved in the prior prosecution . . . if the prior sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of 
the federal interest involved and a substantially enhanced sentence . . . is available through the 
contemplated federal prosecution.") (emphasis added). As a result, the key inquiry under Petite is 
not whether federal prosecutors conceivably could do better, it is whether they can require the 
defendant to serve a sentence that was not even "available" to State prosecutors. Id. In this case, 
however, Mr. Menchel has not asked for anything that State prosecutors could not have obtained. 
The fact that State authorities chose—for unquestionably legitimate reasons—not to seek that 
particular sentence does not change the fact that the sentence was available to the State and 
rejected in its discretion. Therefore, Petite's presumption that the State of Florida's prior 
prosecution of Mr. Epstein has vindicated the federal interest cannot be said to have been 
overcome. 
• 
• 
Second, the State's proposed plea agreement was in no sense "manifestly inadequate" 
under U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. The gap between the conditions contained in the proposed 
agreement and federal prosecutors' proposal was so narrow that it cannot reasonably be 
understood as inadequate, let alone "manifestly inadequate". That federal prosecutors apparently 
believed that the purported federal interest could not be vindicated by anything less than a two-
year jail term fails to satisfy any objective reading of the Petite Policy.I8 Properly interpreted, 
that Policy does not permit federal prosecution whenever prosecutors believe they might better 
vindicate the federal interest or whenever prosecutors consider the State sentence merely 
inadequate. Instead, the Policy requires that the federal interest be "demonstrably unvindicated" 
by the prior State prosecution; that the State sentence be "manifestly inadequate" to vindicate the 
federal interest; and that the successive federal prosecution offer a "substantially enhanced 
sentence." And Petite then makes clear that those words have real meaning by providing a 
telling example of an inadequate State process: "a state prosecution for assault and battery in a 
Mr. Goldberger. In short, it is hard to imagine how the recusal of an assistant to the lead prosecutor could have 
resulted in any advantage to Mr. Epstein; more to the point, no such advantage was sought and none was 
obtained. 
IS Federal prosecutors' demand for a two-year jail term was subsequently reduced to an I8 month jail term as 
reflected in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The difference between this sentence and the state plea 
agreement is even narrower. 
EFTA00225867

• 
Page 42 
• 
• 
a much smaller list—a list that still has not been disclosed to either the State Attorney's Office or 
Mt Epstein's counsel. The landscape was dramatically changed yet again as a result of several 
alleged victims on the government's list each filing a $50 million dollar lawsuit against Mr. 
Epstein. Each publicly now stating they had lied about their ages , and knew nothing about any 
sex activity whatsoever before they arrived. See Herman Public Statement, Exhibit 16. The 
initial discovery precipitated by this lawsuit undeniably su 
rted Mr. Epstein's continued 
assertions that the women lied to him about their ages. See 
Tr. (Deposition) at 37, 
Exhibit 3. These recent facts, along with other new evidence con rms that the conduct in 
question was purely local and should be treated as such. These facts have been obtained under a 
State discovery statute and it was over vigorous objection of the federal prosecutors. 
The federal prosecutors, while clearly acknowledging that this matter fell within the 
ambit of the Petite Policy, continued to assert, without substantiation, that the proposed State 
plea agreement failed to vindicate the federal interest. On August 3, 2007, Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Matthew Menchel rejected the State's new proposed plea agreement. He flatly stated 
that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term of state 
imprisonment." See August 3, 2007 letter from M. Menchel, Exhibit 35.16 This letter openly 
acknowledged that the Petite Policy applied to this matter, and also highlighted the steps federal 
prosecutors were taking in order to circumvent its restrictions. Mr. Menchel's articulation of the 
purported federal interest misrepresents the Petite Policy on two grounds. First, Mr. Menchel's 
position that the federal interest could not be vindicated in the absence of a jail term for Mr. 
Epstein is contrary to Section 9-2.031D of the United States Attorney's Manual. This section 
requires the federal prosecutor to focus exclusively on the quality or process of the prior 
prosecution. The Policy expressly states that the prosecutor should not focus on the sentencing 
outcome unless there are indicia of impropriety by the State prosecutors. See id. ("the 
Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of the result, has vindicated the 
relevant federal interest.") (emphasis added). As stated above, there are no indicia that the 
quality or process of the State prosecution was affected by "incompetence, corruption, 
intimidation, or undue influence," and thus, vindication of the federal interest must be presumed, 
regardless of the type of sentence.17
16 As stated above, federal prosecutors also acknowledged the application of the Petite Policy in drafts of the 
Deferred Prosecution Agreement. See e.g., September 17, 2007 email from M. Villafana to J. Leflcowitz 
attaching draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit 32. 
17 While federal prosecutors once suggested that Mr. Epstein's retention of Jack Goldberger was intended to 
trigger the recusal of assistant prosecutor Dahlia Weiss and thereby influence the outcome of the State 
prosecution, that assertion is frivolous. Mr. Goldberger was retained by Gerald Lefcourt after Mr. Epstein 
already had been indicted by the Grand Jury. Mr. Lefcourt had never heard the name Dahlia Weiss when he 
hired Mr. Goldberger, and had no idea that Mr. Goldberger's law partner was married to a sex-crimes 
prosecutor—much less that that fact would trigger Ms. Weiss's recusal. And Ms. Belohbvek—not Ms. 
Weiss—remained in charge of the State's prosecution of Mr. Epstein before, during, and after the retention of 
(Continued...) 
EFTA00225868

• 
Page 41 
• 
• 
In reaching this determination, State prosecutors took great care in abiding by the policy 
of "horizontal equality," a policy United States Attorney Acosta also has stated dictates his 
prosecutorial decisions. Under this policy, the State determined that Mr. Epstein should be 
charged or given a punishment of no less or no more than anyone else under the same facts. The 
only reason the plea agreement was not filed with the court was the unexpected initiation of the 
federal investigation. Nevertheless, the Petite Policy was triggered once the State Attorney's 
Office and Mr. Epstein came to an agreement on the terms of the State plea. 
Despite the pending resolution between State prosecutors and Mr. Epstein, in early 
August 2007, after a year of conducting their own investigation with cooperation from the FBI, 
federal prosecutors began discussing their own proposal to defer prosecution to the State with 
Mr. Epstein's counsel. 
During these discussions, federal prosecutors represented to Mr. 
Epstein's counsel that they had identified up to forty alleged "victims" of federal crimes that 
qualified for inclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy, and that they intended to 
federally prosecute Mr. Epstein unless he and his counsel, not the federal government, sought 
more stringent conditions to the State's proposed plea agreement, including a two-year term of 
incarceration and a more severe charge. Despite the awkward an unprecedented position in 
which this placed Mr. Epstein—namely, to be forced to have his counsel request that the State 
impose harsher penalties than the State itself believed were warranted—he attempted to comply 
with federal prosecutors' request and came to a new agreement with the State Attorney's Office. 
The new agreement provided for two years of supervised custody (including various other strict 
conditions), followed by two years of incarceration, which may have been rescinded upon 
successful completion of the supervised custody portion of the sentence. See August 2, 2007 
letter to M. Menchel, Exhibit 34. Under this agreement, if Mr. Epstein failed to comply with the 
terms of the supervised custody, incarceration would commence immediately. Upon completion 
of his sentence, Mr. Epstein would thus serve two additional years of reporting probation (which 
also included mandatory and special conditions). 
Indeed, if anything, the sentence provided for by the State plea agreement went too far. 
Proposed as a result of the federal demand, that sentence was considerably harsher than others 
meted out to first-time offenders convicted of similar conduct in Palm Beach County. In fact, the 
State Attorney's Office had never before prosecuted a case involving this type of conduct as a 
felony, unless the victim was exceedingly young, especially vulnerable, or in a trust relationship 
with the perpetrator—facts plainly not present here. 
Moreover, supervised State custody (and its intrusive monitoring conditions) is not the 
norm for first-time offenders. And it is highly questionable whether the harsh conditions of Mr. 
Epstein's State plea agreement should have been proposed at all. Over the course of negotiations 
with federal prosecutors, counsel for Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorney's 
Office, despite trumpeting newly-learned facts resulting from the federal investigation, had 
included on their list of "victims,"
 who could in no way qualify, either as a result of their 
own testimony or by statute. See 
Tr. at 21, Exhibit 2. Indeed, after numerous discussions 
with federal prosecutors over several months, it became evident that the federal prosecutors had 
EFTA00225869

• 
Page 40 
• 
• 
As a threshold matter, there is no evidence that the State's prosecution of Mr. Epstein 
was in any manner tainted by corruption, incompetence, or undue influence. Barry Krischer, the 
deeply respected Palm Beach County State Attorney, has served in that office, elected, reelected, 
and reelected yet again, for 12 years. Lana Belohlavek, the lead State prosecutor in this matter, is 
a career prosecutor who has over a decade of experience prosecuting sex-related crimes and was 
a founding member of the Child Abuse Protocol, which establishes operational procedures for 
the investigation of child abuse reports in Florida. These highly respected State prosecutors 
responsible for this case are seasoned professionals, and they devoted significant time and vast 
resources to this case. They oversaw an extensive 15-month State investigation by State 
authorities, and brought their case to a successful conclusion by securing a felony indictment of 
Mr. Epstein and reaching a strict plea agreement that included terms the State has never 
previously imposed on a first-time offender like Mr. Epstein. 
There is no indication whatsoever that the State prosecution somehow left any federal 
interest demonstrably unvindicated. 
Following its own rigorous investigation into the 
allegations against Mr. Epstein, the State Attorney's Office carefully considered the evidence. 
That evidence included a s cho-sexual evaluation, lie detector test results showing that Mr. 
Epstein believed that 
, one of the two alleged victims, was over 18, and MySpace 
pages proving that Ms. 
regularly falsely represented her age to the general public as at 
least 18. Ms. Belohlavek also found the testimony of one of the main witnesses interviewed by 
the police incredible. Indeed, it was Mr. Epstein's counsel—not the police—that brought to the 
attention of the State prosecutors the key fact that one of the key witnesses had been arrested for 
drug possession and was in the midst of negotiating a reduction of that charge at the time she 
gave her statement to police regarding Mr. Epstein. 
The State Attorney's Office decided to put its wi 
e test by convening a grand 
jury. Subpoenas were issued and the case was presented. 
Hall, a key witness, refused 
to appear. The State grand jury returned an indictment o one count of solicitation of a 
prostitute. After months of contentious negotiation and following the grand jury indictment, a 
State plea agreement was agreed to by the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. The 
sentence available to the State was a maximum five-year term of incarceration and a restitution 
fund specifically tailored to prostitution. See Fl. Stat §§ 796.07 and 775.082. 
The State fully considered the facts of this case and determined that incarceration should 
be held in abeyance. The factors the State considered in making this determination were: (i) Mr. 
Epstein had no prior criminal record; (ii) each encounter with the women in question was 
consensual; (iii) strong evidence that the women admitted to lying about their ages; (iv) Ms. 
Belohlavek, who interviewed some of the witnesses herself, stated that given their lack of 
credibility and the fact that they clearly were seeking money from Mr. Epstein, they were 
"hardly victims" and she believed it would border on the unethical to use them as witnesses; and 
(t this case was, according to Ms. Belohlavek's own words, a typical "sex for money case," the 
type for which the State historically did not require jail time. 
EFTA00225870

• 
Page 39 
girls in his home. The conduct herein was not what Congress had in mind when it broadened the 
relevant federal statutes to include ten year minimum sentences for federal sex-related crimes 
(namely, faceless predators hiding their identities in Cyberspace while preying on children). 
Moreover, this case does not implicate the important national prosecutorial priority in favor of 
protecting minors that has heretofore animated the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section—
specifically, crimes involving Internet luring; sex trafficking of minors; profiting from 
prostitution as a commercial enterprise with the use of some element of force or violence in 
connection with prostitution; international sex trafficking; transportation of minors for the 
purposes of prostitution; or interstate distribution of child pornography. 
The conduct in question has been accurately characterized by a 
d jury as solicitation 
of prostitution, a quintessential State law concern. See United States 
Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, 
n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally 
governed by state regulation)"). 
And as the Department has recognized, in instances of 
prostitution where the "John" is the defendant, states are more than well equipped to handle these 
cases: See November 9, 2007 DOJ letter to the Judiciary, at 8-9, Exhibit 15. 
B. 
The State Prosecution Has Left No Federal Interest Demonstrably 
Unvindicated. 
• 
• 
Petite permits a successive federal prosecution only where the prior state prosecution 
leaves a substantial federal interest "demonstrably unvindicated," U.S.A.M. § -9-2.031A, 
(emphasis added), and further compels the Department to presume that a prior State prosecution 
has vindicated the relevant federal interest. Id. § 9-2.031D ("[T]he Department will presume 
that a prior prosecution, regardless of the result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest.") 
(emphasis added). That presumption controls except in certain narrow circumstances, like when 
the prior State prosecution was tainted by corruption or incompetence, or where the Department 
finds both that the prior state sentence is "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest," 
and that "a substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as 
imprisonment and fines—is available through the contemplated federal prosecution." Id. 
(emphasis added)." None of these conditions have been met. 
15 The Petite Policy also provides that the presumption may be overcome "in those rare cases where three 
conditions are met: 
fast, the alleged violation involves a compelling federal interest, particularly one 
implicating an enduring national priority; second, the alleged violation involves egregious conduct, including 
that which threatens or causes loss of life, severe economic or physical harm, or the impairment of the 
functioning of an agency of the federal government or the due administration of justice; and third, the result in 
the prior prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved." 
U.S.A.M. § 9-
2.0310. As discussed in text, this case involves local conduct that does not implicate a compelling federal 
interest, and the state result is not "manifestly inadequate." 
EFTA00225871