Examining Acosta’s Claims on the Epstein Prosecution
R.
Alexander Acosta, the labor secretary, defended his handling of a sex
crimes case against the financier Jeffrey Epstein over a decade ago.
The
labor secretary, R. Alexander Acosta, rebuffed calls for his
resignation by Democrats, who criticized his decision as a prosecutor in
2008 to accept a lenient sentence for the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
At
a news conference in Washington, R. Alexander Acosta, the labor
secretary and a former United States attorney in Florida, on Wednesday
gave his account of how federal prosecutors dealt with allegations that
Jeffrey Epstein had abused young women and girls, a case first handled
by state prosecutors. Here’s how his version of events stacks up against
what we know.
The role of state vs. federal prosecutors
What Mr. Acosta Said
“Simply put, the Palm Beach state attorney’s office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing.”
Prosecutors
who worked with Mr. Acosta said that the federal case presented them
with legal challenges that made the matter more suited to a state court.
Federal laws, they said, would have required the United States
attorney’s office to prove that Mr. Epstein, a financier, crossed state
lines with the intent to commit the acts.
Nonetheless,
federal prosecutors had legal firepower and resources not available to a
local prosecutor. That was especially important for a case that
presented such complex legal and logistical challenges, involved a large
number of victims — up to 40 at the time of the deal — and the prospect
of facing the best defense lawyers and private investigators Mr.
Epstein’s money could buy. Local law enforcement officials and the
F.B.I. referred the case to Mr. Acosta, in part because they feared Mr.
Epstein would face no more than a single state charge related to
prostitution, which warranted a fine and no jail time.
Investigators
involved in the case were hoping Mr. Acosta could pursue a case that
would impose a more substantial penalty on Mr. Epstein. The outcome
negotiated by Mr. Acosta’s office was a plea deal with state prosecutors
on two prostitution charges that led Mr. Epstein to serve 13 months in
the Palm Beach County jail and be registered as a sex offender. During
his sentence, he was permitted to participate in a work-release program
that allowed him to go to his office six days a week for 12 hours a day.
Barry
Krischer, the former top prosecutor for Palm Beach County, said on
Wednesday that Mr. Acosta was trying to “rewrite history” by suggesting
that state prosecutors were going to be even more lenient toward Mr.
Epstein.
“I can emphatically state
that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong,” Mr.
Krischer said in a statement. “Federal prosecutors do not take a back
seat to state prosecutors. That’s not how the system works in the real
world.”
If Mr. Acosta believed the
state deal was so terrible, he should have filed a federal indictment
instead of conducting “secret negotiations,” Mr. Krischer said.
Were victims afraid to come forward?
What Mr. Acosta Said
“She talks about the challenges faced, she talks about the victims being scared and traumatized, refusing to testify, and how some victims actually exonerated Epstein. Most had significant concerns about their identities being revealed. The acts that they had faced were horrible and they didn’t want people to know about them.”
Mr.
Acosta was referring to a federal prosecutor on his staff and the
possibility that victims might not be willing to testify against Mr.
Epstein. Adam Horowitz, a lawyer who represented some of the victims,
said that Mr. Acosta’s arguments at the news conference were
disingenuous.
He said that the young women were scared to testify, but that it was because the prosecutors had terrified them.
“The
prosecutors were saying, ‘These defense lawyers are going to go through
your whole personal life, dig up your bad acts and your sex life. When
they heard that from prosecutors, sure, they were intimidated,” Mr.
Horowitz said. “They kept saying, ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’”
Eventually, after years and under different circumstances, many of the victims did talk — to a Miami Herald reporter — telling the paper that they were dissatisfied with the efforts of Mr. Acosta’s office.
In
a pool of victims so large, it is inevitable that some of them will
resist going through to trial, said Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer for three of
the victims. But two of his three clients gave depositions and were
“willing and ready” to testify, he said.
Was it the best deal possible?
What Mr. Acosta Said
“We believe that we proceeded appropriately, that based on the evidence and not just my opinion but I have shared the affidavit. Based on the evidence, there was value to getting a guilty plea and having him register.”
It is
impossible to know how members of a jury might have responded to the
evidence if it had been presented to them in a federal trial — or
whether efforts by Mr. Epstein’s team to pressure the victims or
intimidate prosecutors would have worked. But Mr. Acosta’s decision to
accept a plea deal was widely — but not universally — supported by his
own team at the time.
A. Marie
Villafaña, the lead prosecutor in the case and one of the few women in
Mr. Acosta’s leadership team, pushed him to bring charges even if it
risked losing in court. She was eventually overruled, and helped Mr.
Acosta work out the logistics of the plea deal.
Notifying the victims
What Mr. Acosta Said
“When it was finally clear that Epstein would comply with the agreement, she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims, how that was a Friday afternoon at 4:15 and that she learned that the state had scheduled the plea for 8:30 the following Monday. And she talks about how over the weekend, she made every effort to notify the victims at that time.”
Mr. Acosta
was referring to efforts by Ms. Villafaña to reach the victims. His
office began directly negotiating a plea agreement with Mr. Epstein’s
lawyers in August 2007, according to The Miami Herald.
They reached an agreement on Sept. 24 of that year, but talks continued
until June 2008, when Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in court.
From
the time the F.B.I. began investigating Mr. Epstein in 2006 to Sept.
24, 2007, Mr. Acosta’s office “never conferred with the victims” or
informed them that such an agreement was under consideration, a 2019 federal court ruling shows. The ruling notes that Mr. Epstein’s lawyers sought assurances that the victims would be kept in the dark.
Mr.
Acosta cited an affidavit from Ms. Villafaña, who stated that she did
not notify victims because she was worried about negotiations over a
provision that would allow the victims to obtain monetary damages. She
said she was concerned that Mr. Epstein’s lawyers would undermine the
credibility of the victims if negotiations fell through and the case
went to trial.
Even after the agreement was reached with Mr. Epstein, the prosecutors kept the details from victims.
The
victims received letters from the F.B.I. in January 2008 informing them
that the case was still under investigation, but not disclosing the
agreement. Six months later, a lawyer for the victims, Bradley Edwards,
met with a prosecutor to discuss the case — again, the agreement was
left unmentioned.
On June 27, 2008,
Mr. Edwards was informed that Mr. Epstein would plead guilty in court,
but was not told that the state plea would be the resolution to the
federal case. Mr. Horowitz said nobody reached out to any of his seven
clients before Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty on June 30, 2008. And Mr.
Kuvin said that lawyers had to fight in court for months to learn the
details of the deal.
A breakfast meeting with Mr. Epstein’s lawyer
What Mr. Acosta Said
“The meeting that was alleged was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was negotiated, not before. The agreement was signed in September.”
Mr. Acosta
is correct that the meeting he had with Jay Lefkowitz, one of Mr.
Epstein’s lawyers, took place about two weeks after the plea agreement
was reached in September 2007. It is less clear what they discussed.
In
a letter to Mr. Acosta, Mr. Lefkowitz noted the meeting took place on
Oct. 12, 2007, and thanked Mr. Acosta for his “commitment” to not
contact any victims or witnesses.
After the meeting, Mr. Epstein’s lawyers continued to negotiate an addendum and objected repeatedly to notifying the victims.