EPSTEIN
page 2 / 135 . OCR, unverified
that this wasn't, to my understanding, a random number, but
it was informed by, this is what he would have received, and
therefore it is a reasonable -- agree or disagree with the
analysis, but it was an informed number to begin with.
BY
Q
But you don't recall how that analysis was done, or
who conducted --
A
Q
-- that analysis?
A
-- don't recall that.
BY -:
Q
Or even whether it was accurate, actually?
A
I -- again, I don't recall that.
Q
All right.
BY
Q
And I understand the explanation.
A
Right.
EFTA00009020
Page 205
Q
And --
A
Right.
Q
-- what it's tied to, but was there any
consideration -- because this case --
A
Right.
Q
-- was not about one or two victims. It was a very
large scheme by this older, wealthy man, to essentially turn
minors into prostitutes, have sex with them, oral sex, get
other people involved.
You've described it in prior statements as
grotesque and deserving of punishment. What I'm not hearing
through this process is anybody taking a look at this overall
conduct, and saying, what is the appropriate punishment for
this man's conduct? Was there such a consideration, and did
you feel that two years adequately punished him for the scope
of his conduct?
A
Fair question, and perhaps going back to where we
started, which is petite. To my mind at the time, there was
a distinction between what would be the adequate punishment
if this was a purely federal case, versus what is necessary
so that it is not a -- to put it in petite language
a
manifest injustice, so that it wouldn't have come to the
office in the first place.
And that I think is the important distinction,
because if the two years is what he would have received, and
EFTA00009021
Page 206
therefore it would not have come into the office under
petite, then if there is a state disposition to that, that is
one possible outcome.
It would be a different outcome if this was truly a
federal pro=section independent of the state, which goes back
to the point I was making about concern about a federal
precedent with this kind of sentence, because then when the
next person comes along, they say, well, here is this
precedent under 371, or whatnot.
And so, this was, rightly or wrongly, and I
understand the -- the pushback -- an analysis that
distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice, versus what is the appropriate federal outcome to
that. Agree or disagree with the logic is one thing, but did
I explain the logic?
Q
You've -- yes, you've explained the logic.
A
Okay.
Q
And I'm going to push back a little bit --
A
Right.
Q
-- on that, because the petite policy specifically
says it does not apply where the state conduct is only a
minor part -- an insignificant part of the entire course of
conduct, and they give examples about where you have some
type of a RICO scheme, and the state has indicted or
convicted the perpetrator based on something that could be
EFTA00009022
one single overt act in the government's conspiracy, and
doesn't that really show what is going on here, that what the
state had done was really just a small, minor part of this
scheme that the federal government had a --
A
Right.
Q
-- had a real opportunity to punish him for this
entire course of conduct?
A
So, possibly, but if I can circle back to your
question previously, it's interesting that you characterize
this as, he's turning these girls into prostitutes, and then
I think that's really interesting, because in 2019, 13 years
afterwards, despite all the changes in the law, there is
still some element somewhere that says he's turning these
girls into prostitutes, whereas this was a typical
trafficking case of the kind that you'd see in the Lou De
Baca days where, you know, it was called modern day slavery.
That's a very different fact pattern.
So, you know, a girl that's held captive, is forced
to service multiple men per day, where this is part of an
ongoing business arrangement. And so, I hear what you're
saying, but if here at this table at least some element of
that characterization is live, what would it mean in 2006
when these laws are still being developed? And that
consideration, rightly or wrongly, was part of this analysis.
BY
EFTA00009023
Q
Was it explicitly -- in other words, was -- was
that aspect of it, the -- I -- the perception that this was
perhaps activity that -- in which the victims cooperated?
Was that part of the --
S
A
No, no. Let me -- let me distinguish. I didn't
say the perception that this was activities in which the
victims cooperated. What I was going to -- what I -- and
I've gone to before is, would jurors -- is there at least one
juror that might say, look, we've got conflicting victim
testimony.
1.1
Some of them said he did nothing wrong. They all
knew each other. They kept going back and taking payment.
Is this trafficking, or is this prostitution? I'm not --
not saying I agree with that, and I don't think -- I don't