Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with the alex Acosta interview with
the OIG inspectors. Question, Okay, in Exhibit eight, you actually
got the in Exhibit seven, you can see that in
the bottom part of that that you received a copy
of the prosecution memo. On the second page of the
exhibit at the top, answer right, question redacted is forwarding
to you the prosecution memo? Answer rite question. In Exhibit eight,
you see that redacted as forwarding or sending that chain
excluding redacted. That is redacted redacted or redacted redacted and
you additional items in Operation Leap year and there's a
summary of the indictment, the evidence regarding the individual victims. Okay, so,
as of May eleventh, you had before you the prosecution memo,
the proposed indictment, and the substantial amount of additional information.
Did you read the prosecution memo? Answer right? So, I
don't recall, and I don't know you are going to say,
why don't I But this was a long time ago.
I don't recall if I read it or if I
went back to the office and sat down with redacted
and redacted and went over it. I can't recall from
this far, I can say that it looks, based on
this that I was at the US Attorney's conference. The
idea of printing this out on a hotel printer, I wouldn't.
I can't believe I would have printed this out on
a hotel printer. Question, let alone read it on an airplane?
Correct answer, Let alone read it on an airplane. That
would just not have been my practice. Question. But going
back arriving back to your offices, was it your practice
to take voluminous documents like this and go through them
yourself or did you rely on your senior staff? Answer?
I would typically rely on my senior staff. They're the
experienced ones that have seen these matters before. They would
go through it. We'd sit down, we'd talk about the issues.
We might have it in front of us, almost like
you've got all those binders there, but you know you're
calling my attention to particular issues, and we'd sort of
talk it through. Question and you recall doing that in
this case? Answer? I recall having discussions with senior staff
about the case. Question who answer is certainly redacted and
redacted at various points. I can't say that I did
that in May versus April versus June. I can't give
you timelines. Question, Well, we're talking about May, because you've
got the actual process. Answer. It would have been my
practice based on this to go back and discuss it.
And so based on my practice, I would have gone
back and likely discussed it. I doubt I would have
printed this out at whatever hotel I was at. Question
but even when you go back to the office, would
you have somebody printed out so you would have had
it available? Answer? I may have had someone printed out
so it's available. I may have focused on particular parts
of it. Question what kind of issues would you have
focused on? In other words, in other words, some might
go straight to the facts, some might be interested in
the legal theories. What was your approach? Answer? So I
think it depended on the case question. Okay, answer here,
you had legal questions and you also had witness issues,
and I would think that those would have been the
two primary areas. Question would you have gone through the
indictment and the prosecution memo and all of those other
materials or just relied on your experience seeing your people redacted?
And redacted answer as a general practice, probably some combination
as a general and general recollection. The concerns in this
case weren't about the sort of details of what happened,
because we believed he did what he did. The concerns
were about some of the legal issues around it and
some of the issues in terms of testimony. Question of victims,
answer of victims, question all right. On page nine Exhibit
nine is an email that you are not on, but
that notes that redacted as advising redacted, that you as
your memo and left Court's letter. Gerald left Court, new
York attorney who was one of the members of Epstein's
defense team. Did you know him? Answer? I did not.
Question did you ever encounter him? As far as you recall, answer,
I did not question, all right, he had according to
the documents, we have made two substantial submissions in February
of that year in an effort to dissuade them from
pursuing a prosecution, and we have every reason to believe
and no reason not to believe, that that's what it's
being referred to. Do you recall reviewing substantial submission from
Defense Council at this time attacking a very granular detail,
the credibility of witnesses and so on. Answer, I don't
recall reviewing those. Again, I recall discussions with my senior
team about issues that included credibility, and I'm not sure
if its credibility is the right word. But how the
victims would do on the stand question okay, and who
do you recall talking to about that? Answer? So some
combination of redacted and redacted would have been the likely
I recall the discussion. I don't recall whether it was
redacted or whether it was redacted or redacted, but the
logical inference would have been it would have been some
combination of redacted and redacted. Question Okay, redacted has told
us that during this period he was not actively involved
in the case. Question, but that redacted was. Would that
be consistent with your memory? Answer that sure, I mean
they were a team. They became more or less involved
based on needs. Question and was there any particular if
redacted was working with you directly on reporting on his
assessment of the case, was there any reason for redacted
to be involved? Answer? I might bounce ideas off him.
I mean he was he was the right across. So
we work closely. But you know redacted was a crime
chief and if he was in the weeds, Redacted and
I would speculate would sort of much like me, defer
to his judgment because they've known each other and they've
worked together and they had a good working relationship. Question
and is it do we understand correctly that as first
assistant Redacted has a brief that really encompassed the entire office? Answer?
He did, he supervised the civil, the criminal, the appellate,
and the forfeiture. Question. All right, there is here in
this email that you did not see back in the
day Exhibit nine, a pushback from redacted regarding the rush
that Redacted is in to pursue the case. And he says,
this is obviously a very significant case and Alex wants
to take his time in making sure he is comfortable
before proceeding. Can you tell us what the basis would
be for or was for that assertion by redacted? Answer? So,
I can't tell you from the recollection what the basis
is is. I can speculate that the material is being
transmitted Friday morning. He gets cut off the eleventh answer
by Acosta. Yeah, so Friday morning. It hasn't been reviewed
by anyone in the management chain, much less approved and
edited and redacted that Monday is saying, why don't I
have a decision, and so truly extenuating circumstances, typically you'd
give you know it, it'd have to go through the
management chain up to the US attorney. And so he's
pushing back saying, it's been a day or it's been
a weekend. I'm just reading between the lines here. Question
who had authority to sign off on the Epstein prosecution
to say indict answer? So as a delegated matter, redacted
had signature authority, as did as did it redacted? As
did it redacted? And obviously I did. As a practice matter,
this is something that would have gone through the chain
and that we would have then discussed. Question, but why
have level is it? Because, as redacted says, obviously a
very significant case answers So at my level, not only
because of the facts, because it's not about the facts,
but I do think that there are legal issues that
implicated policy that we were thinking through. Question and what
were the legal issues and what were the policy issues? Answer?
So the legal issues and also factual issues in terms
of the witnesses. So the legal issue, so there's an
email from redacted based on you know, the contemporaneous record
that alludes to some of this. In my experience at
the Civil Rights Division, trafficking cases involved, you know, I
can describe some some horrific cases of girls being held
against their will. You know, you add CP matters with
young women, sometimes incredibly young, that the office prosecuted. As
trafficking laws were being developed, there was a lot of
discussion about what's the difference between trafficking and solicitation, And
the discussion took place as the trafficking laws were being developed,
and so this implicated that, and it implicated what the
local and what is federal? Question? All right? So in
the first you're talking in the first category, you're talking
about the individual charges that had been that were proposed,
which included both trafficking and coercion and enticement or enticement
answer correct question, all right? And in the latter you
felt that did you to what extent did the witness victim?
Witness kind of credibility issues implicates policy answer, So I
think I said that policy and victim in that In
that there was certainly discussion between me and my management
about concerns as to how the victims would sort of
stand up in court. Question, so, what would make you
comfortable before proceeding? What would you what at the point
would have made you comfortable about proceeding? Answer? So I
think that at this point, I don't think it's what
would have or would not have made me comfortable? And
I'm speculating. I think it came in on a Friday.
Let's talk this through. Question, But you've just identified for
us issues in your mind had to be resolved. Question
all right, okay, at that point, does your recollection have
any doubt that some form of indictment or charging instrument
against Epstein was likely to become viable? Answer? So it
was a case that I thought it very important that
we do something. How that something played out, I think
had all along been a matter of discussion. Question as
something other than what the US Attorney's Office does, which
is prosecute. Answer well, no, I mean what the US
Attorney's Office does is ensure that justice is served. Question right, answer,
and in partnership with state attorneys. And sometimes that means
state attorneys take the lead. Sometimes that means that the
US Attorney's Office takes the lead. And a lot of
times we actually you know, we would share staff because
sometimes it made sense, you know, for one part or
the other to take the lead. So writ large, I
thought throughout it was a very important that something happened.
There were concerns all along. I can speculate that this
is just a reflection of those continuing concerns. Question as
expressed by you to redacted in the ordinary course, answer
as developed as a group throughout this if we go
back to what exhibit question June of two thousand and six, answer,
so Exhibit three says in that meeting, I summarized the
case in the state attorney's office handling it. I acknowledged
that we needed to do work to collect evidence establishing
a federal nexus, and I noted the time and money
that would be required for an investigation. And so as
far back as the initial meeting there is discussion about
the federal nexus and whether this is a state or
federal case. Question all right. Exhibit seven is an early
email from redacted to you early meeting. It precedes the
one we just looked at, and early in that it's
right as you're receiving the prosecution memo and you ask
him have you read the memo? And curious why you
ask redacted rather than redacted. Answer, I don't recall. I
can speculate, and I have two thoughts that I'll speculate.
One is redacted to her direct supervisor, and I might
be thinking her second line supervisor. So why is redacted
sending me this? Redacted? Have you read this? Ie? Did
you jump the chain? Secondly, I think I may have
wanted to have multiple opinions on this. It's most likely
that I had talked to redacted already because Redacted and
I talked more often. And I'm asking another person in
the management chain, Hey, what do you think let's have
multiple opinions on the table here? Question? Well, is this
the first time other than redacted that we see you
getting a recommendation? Answer? Right? Question? When Redacted says he
thinks that you should charge him, the office should charge Epstein.
He has issues with a charging strategy proposed by redacted,
but one he says, we all need to get on
the same page as to whether the statute covered the
conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge.
I think the answer to both is yes, although there
is some risk on some of the statutes. He proposes
that the office start with a complaint, which is not unusual,
is it? Answer? It happens yes, question all right, which
allows the defendant to be arrested and ideally detained, and
then the defendant is then highly motivated or incentivized to
work a pre indictment resolution. That's what redacted is proposing.
He also notes that it's important, in his view, to
cap them with conspiracy accounts to make a plea attractive,
and the court could give us a hard time with
that if we had to dismiss indicted accounts. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
we left off. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
off with Alex LaCosta and his interview with the OIG inspectors. Question. Okay,
the proposed indictment included one conspiracy, a conspiracy that has
a five year statutory maximum, and this notion is that
Epstein be charged with a five year conspiracy count and
take it from there. Do you know what he was
referring to when he noted that a court could give
you a hard time in dismissing indicted counts in the case. Answer, So,
as a typical matter, once there's an indictment, the pre indictment, well,
by definition, a pre indictment resolution comes off the table.
But in cases of this nature, the resolutions tend to
happen before indictment because once the indictment is done, at
least in South Florida, dismissal of charges, for example, you know,
if saying, let's think about a three seventy one with
a five year cap at rule eleven, that's something that's
out Florida judges they tend not to you know, dismissing
a number of accounts and then doing a rule eleven
is not something that judges tend to do. Question all right,
Two pieces to that. One is the issue of dismissing
substantiative accounts substantative counts. Was that a particular concern in
the case because of the nature of the conduct represented
in the substantative accounts? Answer? So, your question, you asked
a general question and then you're moving to a specific
but as a general matter, not just in this case,
but in other cases it was rare that the office
after in cases like this, after a full charge was done,
that the substantative counts were dismissed. So, for example, in
the public corruption cases that I referenced earlier at U
Palm Beach, those were all negotiated pre indictment and agreed to,
and then by the time the case was indicted, it
was all sort of set on autopilot. Questions. So typically,
in my experience, a disposition like that results in a
criminal information not an indictment. Question. Are you saying that
you would go ahead and indict then? Answer? No, What
I'm saying is that there were it was all negotiated
in advance, and then there was information and the information
would go forward, not an indictment question. All right, answer,
And so that is how a member of a high
profile case typically proceeded as opposed to indict and dismiss question.
And that's the experience of the Southern District of Florida
in general. Answer, it was in particularly in the Palm
Beach office, with other high profile cases that were there
at the time. Question, do you recall in any case
in which a judge in an indicted case refused to
dismisscounts when the government in an indictment under those circumstances. Answer.
I don't recall specific cases, but I can say that
typically in the higher profile cases, you'd negotiated with opposing
counsel presenting information, the information would have agreed to an
agreed guideline and it would proceed in that way. Question understood.
But in this case, I'm focusing on the assertion by
redacted that the court could give us a hard time,
and that's a little different from, you know, exercising discretion
to negotiate and proceed by information. So is there any
judge that was particularly concerning with regard to an unwillingness
to dismiss answer? So, first, this is twelve years ago,
and I don't recall any specific judge, but I can
sort of say that was not the practice of the office.
The practice of the office was to proceed by information
rather than indictment with dismissal. Because there is more, you
can lay out more what you negotiated. I think later
there's a letter from redacted that sort of presents the
same perspective. Question you said, in a case of this nature,
the resolution happens before indicting. What is a case of
this nature? Answer higher profile, higher profile cases. Questions So
not necessarily a sex offense case. Answer not necessarily sex offenses. No,
no higher profile cases. This was just a So I
would say it's a combination of all of the above.
And to my mind, one of the parts of this
case is the legal theories were, if not novel, there
were novel within the Southern District of Florida, at least
some of the legal theories. And well, we'll probably get
into that question. Did his wealth make it a high
profile case? Answer? Well, it was clearly in the paper,
and so that made it a high profile case. I
don't think. I don't think it was his wealth. I
think it was all of the above. This was a
matter that the state attorney had been ready to charge
that the federal government is now jumping into and saying
by its presence that the state did not do enough.
That in and of itself makes it a very high
profile case. I can't remember any other instance, certainly during
my time, when we jumped in and said, you know,
the state drop charges, and so we're going to do more.
Question as opposed to or as distinguished from when you
described a few moments ago a situation in which the
federal authorities and the state authorities kind of work together
to sort out what would be charged where, and do
it cooperatively? Answer? And that was more cooperative? I would
you know, I do recollect that, and I think the
record bears this out that this was not a particularly
cooperative relationship between US and the state attorney. If I could,
if I could return I think your question the way
you posed your question, you set a recommendation from redacted
and let me let me push back a little bit
on that, saying what are your thoughts? Have you read it?
What are your thoughts? And he says, yes, we can
talk next week. My current thoughts are it's very different.
Then we've sat down, we've discussed this. This is my
now informed position. Question understood, And I should have been clearer.
I was referring to to his recommendation that if you
were going to proceed, you should start with a complaint.
Just to be clear. Answer and I'm just saying initial
thoughts gets cut off. Question all right, So were you
aware that redacted bootleg the copy of the pro's memo
to redact it at CEOs? Answer? I was not. Question
he did at the time? Answer okay? Question and did
you know redacted? Answer a little bit. I certainly knew
of them. Had you encounter him when he was chief
of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section? Answer right? Question
in the criminal division here correct? Had you encountered them
while you were in this building? Also? Answer? Most likely?
I knew of him enough that I correspond and shose
and I recall asking to involve him pretty early on question.
So it does read as if you were acquainted with him.
Answer yeah, question all right? And did you have any
did his opinion his views as chief of CEOs and
as redacted who had been in AUSA in Miami? Did
his view's influence on your thinking about the case? Answer?
I don't think at this time I was aware that
redacted had been consulted? Answer all right? And in July,
Just so you know and I have, this is not
something you saw. He provided a fairly strong statement by
emailt or redacted and redacted, which he advises that he
reviewed the prosecution memo closely. It's terrific. He says, redacted
did a terrific job, and he says we agree with
her legal analysis her charging decisions are legally sound, and
then Redacted goes through the different statutes and concludes that
they are all properly charged and that although there are
some issues legally, that in his view we should prevail,
our position should prevail, and that he also reviewed the
arguments contained in the letters from defense counsel and he
found none of their arguments persuasive. So, at least as
of July eighteenth, your three levels of supervisors down, y're
on notice that CEOs was on board and wanted to
see the case move forward. But is it am I
correct an understanding that at the time you were unaware
of that answer? I do not recall being aware of
that question. All right, okay, if you had been aware
of it, if they had sent this, I don't want
to overstate it, but it's pretty strong endorsement for the
proposed prosecution. Would you have been influenced by that answer? Sure?
I would have. I mean I respected or redacted and
clearly wanted him to be part of the team and
later invited him down and so on. So yes, question, okay,
all right, do you know why they wouldn't have shared
your people wouldn't have shared this with you? Answer, I
don't know, question all right. So, as far as based
on the briefings that you got in this time period
when there was an effort to try to figure out
what you were going to do, were there any issues
of concern of fact or evidence or the charges that
were left unaddressed? In other words, if there were issues
about victim credibility, were steps being taken to address those? Answer?
Unaddressed is again it's a very binary. It's not about
addressed versus unaddressed. And so let me sort of come
at it if I can try to get there. There
were concerns around some legal issues. There were concerns about
how the victims would do when put on the stand.
Question right answer. As a general matter, we thought there
was enough if we had to go forward, we could,
as an ethical matter go forward. That doesn't mean that
there was not value in a pre indictment resolution. And
so here you have redacted based on this exhibit saying
we need to get on the same page as to
what the charge pre indictment resolution cap them with conspiracy
count to make up the attractive So a five year cap,
something less than five years. You have redacted in Raffid
David that was submitted to the court saying she favored
a pre indictment resolution. And so it's not a have
you addressed everything, yes or no, as opposed to putting
all of this, how do we move forward? Question? Right?
But there is a binary point here, and that is
you either indict or you don't indict. You either present
an indictment to the grand jury or you don't. Right,
that's a decision, right answer, So I would actually push
back in that many cases, it's not quite that binary.
In many cases you sit down with the opposing counsel
and say, look, we can go to a grand jury
and we can present this indictment and indict or we
can resolve this now. If we resolve this now, this
is the path that we can go forward. Alternatively, we
can go here. And so it's not an a versus
B question. I understand that nuance. But the decision to indict,
I mean you either indict or you don't. If you
don't indict, it's for any number of reasons. If under
the circumstances, the choices that are available are you have
a case that's been brought, taking it from the state,
you can decline it, send it back to the state,
make it go away. Whatever. Answer right, we're not interested.
You can indict, You can indict and go to trial.
These are the subcategories. Or you can indict and have
the defendant plead to the indictment. Or you can indict
and work a post indictment pleed deal, which raises the
issue you talked about, Or you can negotiate. Or you
can charge, proceed by complaint and do as Redactive with
suggesting work a pre indictment but post charge disposition, or
you can work a precharge disposition. Right. I mean, that's
really that's the parade of possibilities. Answer sure, that's more
than indictment or don't indict. That's six or seven options. Question.
I understand that that's how it'll play out. But the
decision as to whether to indict is binary. You're either
indicting or you're not indicting. The act of indicting is
something that either happens or doesn't happen. That's all I'm saying.
Answer sure, question. Okay, So that's what I'm getting at
with respect to the indictment. So as you're looking at
this case, it's as if you're doing sort of one
analytical track, which is what do we do with the case.
The other piece of that, and a track that could
have been followed exclusively, is what do we need to
do to get an indictment that is legally sound and evidentiary,
evidentiary solid. I'd like to focus on that track because
they're not unrelated. Answer sure question, if you never get
down do we have a viable indictment road and you're
not going to be able to do anything in the
other road. So at this point you have identified, and
you have collectively you and your people had identified some witnesses,
victim witnesses issues, and some legal issues. My question is
where steps being taken I use the term address Let
me let me clarify with respect to the witness as
the FBI and the line attorney, with the assistants perhaps
of the grand jury, taking steps to corroborate shore up
victim witness testimony, find new victims, find additional evidence, and
so on. Answer so take in that in part is helpful.
So with respect to the witness issues, I recall and
redacted goes into much more detail in heraffid David, but
I recall concerns that were communicated to me in essence
in sort of a summary. My impression of recollection of
these girls are young, they're impressionable, they're scared, will they
stand up in court? There are any number of there's
any number of things that could be used against them.
Some of them are and this is uncomfortable, but some
of them thought he actually cared for them, and that's
not a typical in these cases. They were sort of
to develop those thoughts and they're wrong, but they are
what they are and were actually saying he did nothing wrong.
And because many of them knew one another, how would
that all play out? And so it would have been
my assumption, particularly given you know how much work redacted
was doing on this case. Misredacted was doing on the case,
and she, in combination with the FBI, would be pursuing
those matters and looking to develop the evidence and corroborate
and throughout the process, it would have been my assumption
and hope that she was continuing to develop the facts,
because that can only help question. So, as US attorney,
would it indeed have been your expectation? Answer yes, question,
and the expectation that her that all those interim supervisors
would have been supporting her and encouraging her and guiding
her answer, it would have been, that's what happens in
typical cases. Question right, answer, Just because we're having a
legal discussion doesn't mean you stop pursuing leads. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
gonna pick up where we left off with the OIG
interview of alex Acosta. Question. Okay, I just want to
sort of round out the little bit of this the
state the state only resolution. You use the term a
couple of times, backstopping. What do you mean by that? Answer?
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. Question 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 your office had already
understood from the evidence was a quite wide ranging scheme
of predatory my term behavior regarding minor victims. Answer, so,
I don't recall a discussion around the Ashcroft memo. I
would characterize that 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, not allows, but stands aside and
lets the state proceed. But in this case, you actually
had an active investigation that had been proceeding for a year. Answer. So,
let's take a drug context, where there might be any
number of active investigations where the federal charges can be
rather substantial, but ultimately the federal government says, just let
the state proceed with this, or violent crime cases where
the federal government could bring gun charges using a felon
in possession or another mandatory minimum, but the state goes
forward with So in that sense he gets cut off question,
but the state goes forward with what answer forward with
different charges 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 a fact pattern that
are under investigation that proceed in state court, where the
disposition is different then and would have been if it
had proceeded in federal court. Question, all right, do you
have anything on that redacted on the two years or
something else redacted? No, I'm going back the two years redacted? Okay?
Question 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 in
the negotiation was jail time. If you wanted three things
you've said, jail time, sex offender status, and some kind
of restitution or damages or mechanisms sex offender registration. There's
really no give there. You either register or you don't.
I'm being binary again. I'm sorry, it's binary. And likewise
the monetary recovery provision. So really the only thing to
negotiate is time, right answer, And so your question is
why did we not start at three, so we ended
up at two. Question, Well, that's a consequence of what
I was asking. Answer, 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'm sorry, do you have a question? Question? No,
go ahead? Answer? You know. I also from my perspective, was,
you know, early on when we said firm on the
two years, I thought two years would have been the
right outcome. We ended up on eighteen months. I can't
say how. There are some documents that might help, but
I was least initially firm on those two years. Question right,
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? Answer? Correct.
And the point I'm trying to convey there is 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's reasonable agree or disagree with the analysis.
But it was an inform number to begin with. Question,
but don't you recall how the analysis was done or
conducted or that analysis? Answer? I don't recall that question
or even whether it was accurate. Actually, answer again, I
don't recall that question, and I understand that explanation. Answer right,
question what it's tied to. But was there any consideration
because this case was not about one or two victims.
It was a very large scheme by this older, wealthy
man to essentially turn miners into prostitutes, have sex with
them or all sex, get other people involved. You've described
it in prior statements as grotesque and deserving a 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? Answer a
fair question, and perhaps going back to where we started,
which is petit. 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's not, to put it in petit language,
a manifest injustice, so that it would have had to
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 therefore it
would not have come into the office under Petit, 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 prosecution 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 three seventy one or whatnot.
And so this was rightly or wrongly, And I understand
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 that logic is
one thing, But did I explain the logic question? You've
explained the logic question. And I'm going to push back
a little bit 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 rico scheme and the state has
indicted or convicted the perpetrator based on something that could
be one single overt act in the government 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 the scheme, that the federal government had
a real opportunity to punish them for this entire course
of conduct. Answers. 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 twenty nineteen, thirteen
years afterward, 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 lew Debacca days,
where you know, I was called modern day slavery. That's
a very different fact pattern. So you know, a girl
who's held captive is forced to serve multiple men per day,
where this part of an ongoing business arrangement. And so
I hear what you're saying. But if they're at this table,
at least some element of that characterization is live, what
would it mean in two thousand and six when these
laws are still being developed? And that consideration rightly or
wrongly was part of this analysis. Question was it explicitly?
In other words, was that aspect of it the perception
that this case was perhaps activity that in which the
victims cooperated? Was that part he gets interrupted here by
a costa? 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've
gone to before, is would jurors Is there at least
one juror that might say, Look, we've got conflicting victim testimony.
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 saying
I agree with that, and I don't think that prosecutors do.
I'm saying, is there is there at least the possibility
of that question? Was that articulated to you by the
people who were listening to by redacted and redacted and
redacted answer, So that certainly was part of the discussion.
When I talk about the victim issues, would at least
some jurors view it that way rightly or wrongly? Question?
And you were call having those conversations. Answer, I recall
having not only how would the witness stand up in court,
but how would jurors view them? And then the second
part of that is as it goes up in the
appellate process with respect to the federal nexus and so
I hear you, but you know it's the sort of
one of the factors, and so yeah, question. What I'm
getting at, though, is that there doesn't seem like there
was consideration or a discussion about is this two years
capturing the scope of his conduct versus we're just going
to tie it to this potential state crime that could
have been charged. Answer affair, and I would say that
the two years was not meant. So the petit policy
has several prongs. And to my recollection, the petita analysis
was not based on and let's not even call it
petita analysis. That overstates it. But it was much more
of a is this a manifest injustice? And if the
original and so you sort of see it in an
exhibit three, this would not have been brought to the
office in the first place. If you know if he
had pled to jail time and registration, and rightly or wrongly,
that was understood from the beginning of the case and
was a factor in how the case was viewed. Question
And how do you know that it wouldn't have that
it wouldn't have been upset with a minimal jail time
even if there was sex registration. Answer. So I can't,
twelve years later say how we knew that. I can't
say that. My general impression was that this was proceeding
at the state, that there were certain charges, and that
those charges changed when it went to the grand jury,
and that it went from I think they even changed
the ASA involved. Question they did. Answer. I can't speak
for certain, but you probably have that from the record,
and that when they changed the ASA involved and took
it to the grand jury, the charges that came back
were substantially less. Question do you remember the circumstances? Did
you know the circumstances under which that ASA was changed? Answer?
I don't know. Question all right. By the way, do
you remember an occasion in which redacted came to your
office in Miami to oppress you on what was going
to be happening with the federal case. Answer, I don't
recall question. You don't recall answer, I don't recall question.
So before we leave this one little thing, So, if
this case had come into the federal system as a
part from the taken the digression through the state system,
do you think that the two years was an appropriate
punishment given the scope of his conduct? Answer? I think
that if it had come into the federal system apart
from the whole state and the petique consideration and all
of that, we may have ended up in a different place.
I viewed the two years, to my recollection, as a
manifest injustice standard and not an appropriate punishment standard. Question
meaning whether it was manifestly unjust that he got two years?
Answer no, whether it was so let me let me rephrase, no,
jail time was a manifest injustice if he had gone
to jail for two years in the state system and
registered the question of whether it would have come to
the office at all, and to my recollection, the consensus
was and redacted based on Exhibit three, agrees with that
that it would have never come to the office in
the first place, because we would not view that under
petite as a manifest injustice. There are any number of
cases that are prosecuted around the country where an individual
gets a jail time that the federal government may not
agree with, but that doesn't mean the federal government reprosecutes
those cases. The instances where the federal government reprosecutes the
state case are pretty rare to my knowledge, and so
under the petite standard, the manifest injustice, it would have
been a manifest injustice to have zero jail time and
zero registration. But if the original charges had remained, that
would have been different. Matter. That does not mean that
this is the best outcome in the state system, and
so perhaps beating a you know, an issue. But let
me maybe give an example. One concern that I had
was that in the violent crime side, the state brings
a case the you know, there is a deferment, no
jail time. The state when it brings a second case
and there's minimal jail time, well, now the person has
done three violent crimes, they have a gun. They go
to federal and it's like, please don't do that, pretty
please don't do that. You know, we're going to punish
you a little bit. And then all of a sudden
incomes the federal government with the big, big punch to
the face because the federal sentences are so different than
the state sentences, and that happens all the time and
any number of context in Florida. That doesn't mean that
all those cases get reprosecuted as gun cases in Florida.
That means that we understand that Florida system is very
different than the federal system. And so the way we
looked at it, at least based on my recollection those
two years, was not what we would have received if
this was a purely federal case. But would this case
have been prosecuted by the federal system additionally if he
had received jail time and registration in the state system? Question,
is it fair to say that this particular concern about,
for lack of a better word, federalism or the petit
policy was a primary concern of yours versus any of
your employers in terms of redacted or redacted answer, I
think it's fair to say that I focused more on
the legal side of things, and my team focused more
on the trial and how this would play out at trial,
and both of them, both of them sort of informed
the outcome. Question And are you including this petite policy
and your consideration of the legal issue answer. Yes, yeah,
I think that they're all tied together. All right, folks,
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
where we left off. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.