EPSTEIN
page 6 / 307 . OCR, unverified
others’ actions occurring in 2006-2008, such as conversations, meetings, or documents they
reviewed at the time.8 However, OPR’s evaluation of the subjects’ conduct was aided significantly
by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the
government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the
participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them.
III.
OVERVIEW OF OPR’S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
OPR’s primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in
accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation’s principal
law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct
against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to
In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the
investigation focuses on Epstein’s state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.
OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution
of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in
the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that
litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions
to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR’s request for a written
response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these
materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in
preparation for their interviews.
viii
investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.9 OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations
of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department
attorney’s alleged professional misconduct.
In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs
the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department
attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of
their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney
licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it
concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard
intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR’s analytical framework, when OPR concludes that
(1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not
intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the
subject’s conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude
that a subject attorney’s conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional
misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may
conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted
inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney’s
conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.10
IV.
ISSUES CONSIDERED
In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to
the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO’s
interactions with Epstein’s victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets
of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report.
A.
The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA
In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR
considered whether any of the NPA’s provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute,
professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR
considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination
of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants
C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring
during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during
OPR’s investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department
attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR’s determination that