EPSTEIN
page 1 / 135 . OCR, unverified
files DataSet 7 MASTER
==================== DOCUMENT: files__DataSet 7__EFTA00009016.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: filesDataSet 7
METADATA_FILENAME: EFTA00009016.pdf
----------------------------------------
Page 200
day, you were calling for some edits that really reflected --
seemed to reflect a real discomfort --
A
Q
-- as you identify.
A
Again, I'm perhaps supporting -- I'm supporting the
point you're trying to make that we were focused on getting
this done, and real concern that he would not go to jail.
And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did
the focus on, let's just get this done and get a jail term,
mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate
how this train is moving?
Q
You --
A
From my perspective.
Q
Okay. I want to just sort of round out the little
bit of this -- the state -- the state only resolution. You
used the term a couple of times backstopping. What do you
mean by that?
A
What I mean by that is, a sense that the state
wasn't doing enough, and perhaps backstopping is a polite way
of saying encouraging the state to do a little bit more.
Q
MM-hmm. All right. Did you have any discussions
about whether this disposition comported with the Ashcroft
memo in that you were hunting to the state for a minor
charge, for a fairly minor charge, what you -- your office
had already understood from the evidence was a quite wide
EFTA00009016
ranging scheme of predatory, my term, behavior regarding
minor victims?
A
So, I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft
memo. I would characterize what we did differently, in that
there are any number of instances where the federal
government or the state government can proceed, and state
charges are substantially less and different, and on a fairly
regular basis, the federal government allows the state
no:
allows, but stands aside and lets the state proceed.
Q
But in this case, you actually had an active
investigation that had been proceeding for a year.
A
So, let's take the drug context, where there might
be any number of active investigations where the federal
charges can be rather substantial, but ultimately, the
Q
But the state goes forward with what?
A
Forward with different charges that -- that have a
lesser term. And so, I don't think it's unusual. We can
talk about, you know, whether this was the best disposition
or not, but I don't think it's unusual to have fact patterns
that are under investigation that proceed in state court,
federal government says just let the state proceed with this,
or violent crime cases where the federal government could
bring gun charges using felon in possession or another
mandatory minimum, but the state goes forward with -- so, in
that sense --
EFTA00009017
Page 202
where the disposition is different than -- and would have
been if it had proceeded in federal court.
Q
All right. Do you have anything on that?
: On the two years, or something else?
: No. I'm going back to the two
years.
: Okay.
BY
Q
Did you think -- did you believe at the time, if
this was part of your thinking, that because it was so
important to get sex offender registration, and even later
developed damages -- monetary damages for the victims, under
the state plea arrangement, that pretty much the only thing
that the government had -- the federal government had to give
up in this negotiation was jail time? If you wanted -- you
wanted --
A
Right.
Q
-- three things --
A
Correct.
Q
-- you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and
some kind of restitution or damages --
A
Right.
Q
-- mechanisms. Sex offender registration, there's
no -- really no give there. You either register or you
don't. I'm being binary --
EFTA00009018
Page 203
A
Right.
Q
-- again, I'm sorry.
A
But it is binary, so --
Q
It is binary.
A
Yes.
Q
And likewise, the --
A
Right.
Q
-- monetary recovery provisions. So, really, the
only thing to negotiate is time, right?
A
And so, your question is why did we not start at
three so we ended up at two?
Q
Well, that's -- that's -- that's a consequence of
what --
A
So --
Q
-- I was asking.
A
So, again, my recollection is I understood this to
reflect what he would have received as opposed to some
arbitrary, let's start at three so we end up at two. I
also -- I'm sorry, you have a question?
Q
No, go ahead. Go ahead. I'll get to my question.
A
You know, I also -- from my perspective, was, you
know, early on when we set firm on the two years, I thought
two years would have been the right outcome. We ended up on
months. I can't say how. There's some documents that
might help, but I -- but I was at least initially firm on
EFTA00009019
Page 204
those two years.
Q
Right, so you -- when you say, I thought the two
years was the right amount, is that based on your
understanding that that's what he would have gotten in the
state?
A
Correct.
Q
All right.
A
That -- and the point I'm trying to convey there is