← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The OIG Report Detailing The Investigation Into Epstein's NPA (Part 52-54) (4/8/26)
00:42:31
The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty....
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's npa. Significant Post Plea Developments Immediately after Epstein's state guilty pleas, Vilafana notifies Some Victim Attorneys Vilafana's contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein's June 30, 2008 guilty pleas, she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims, including in civil suits that were pending against Epstein. Vilafana also emailed one of the pro bono attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an agreement with the USAO requiring him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the victims. Vilafana advised Goldberger, the FBI has received several calls regarding the npa. I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the NPA was filed under seal, but the FBI and our office are declining comment if asked. July 7, 2008 the CVRA litigation is initiated on July 3, 2008, Victims Attorney Edwards spoke to Villefana by telephone about the resolution of the state case against Epstein and the next stage of the federal prosecution. In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, Edwards asserted that during this conversation Vilafana did not inform him of the npa, but that during the call he sensed that the USAO was beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes. However, in an email to Vilafana that sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call, Edward stated that his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal. Vilafana told Sloman that after she told Edwards that the government was bound by the agreement assuming Epstein completed it, Edwards asked if there was the slightest bit of hesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance that he and his three clients be allowed to consult with the USAO before making a decision. That same day, Edwards wrote a letter to Villefana complaining that Epstein's day court sentence was grossly inadequate to for a predator of this magnitude, and urged Vilafauna to move forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecutions for the crimes Mr. Epstein committed. On July 7, 2008, Edwards filed his emergency petition in the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of Courtney Wild, who was then identified only as Jane Doe. She was soon joined by a second petitioner and they were respectively referred to as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe no. 2. Edwards claimed that the government had violated his client's rights under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting the victims. The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the cvra. The USAO opposed the petition, arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement and in mid-2007 to defer prosecution to the state. July 2008 Vilafana prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to listed victims on July 8, 2008, Vilafana provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for the US Code 18 Section 2255 purposes, noting that he had inadvertently left off one individual. In her June 30, 2008 letter, Vilafana also informed the defense that beginning the following day she would distribute notifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel, informing them that Epstein's attorney would be the contact for any civil litigation if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any one of these victims is entitled to proceed under US Code 18 Section 2255 to be considered a breach of the terms of the npa. After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice letter, Villefana drafted a letter she sent on July 9 and 10 to nine victims who had previously retained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that in light of Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to engage in prostitution and is sentence of a total of 18 months imprisonment, followed by 12 months. Community control the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of the state plea and sentence subject to certain conditions. The letter included a reference to the US Code 18 section 2255 provision of the NPA and, although the defense had never agreed to it, used language from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney Sanchez clarifying the damages provision. The paragraph below was described as one condition to which Epstein has agreed Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of violation of an offense enumerated in Title 18, U.S. code Section 2255, will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she would have had if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of enumerated offenses. For purposes of implementing this paragraph, the United states shall provide Mr. Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to name as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority determining which evidentiary burdens, if any, a plaintiff must meet, shall consider that it is intent of the parties to place these identified victims in the same position as as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more, no less. On July 10, 2008, Vilafana sent Goldberger a final notification of identified victims highlighting the defendant's obligation under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to U.S. code 18, Section 2255, and again listing the 32 individuals whom the United States was prepared to name as victims of of enumerated offense. The same day, Vilafana sent Goldberger a second letter noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notification on a rolling basis. Villefana informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to the listed victims who were unrepresented to inform them that the case was resolved and to confirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls, Vilafana proposed the following language to the case we are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein investigation and to thank you for your help. Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense and will require him to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement. Mr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of restitution. All of these terms are set out in the letter that a USA Vilafana is going to send out. Do you have a lawyer? Get name or address? If not, where do you want the letter sent? If you have questions when you receive the letter, please understand that we cannot provide legal advice, but the lawyers at the following victim rights organizations are able to help you at no cost to you. Also, ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is available even though the investigation is closed. On July 21, 2008, Villefana sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses the FBI had by the time that they confirmed it. Vilafana provided Epstein defense counsel with a copy of the letter sent to each victim directly or through counsel, while the mailing addresses were redacted. July, August 2008 the FBI sends the victim notification letter to victims residing outside of the United States. While attempting to locate and contact unrepresented victims, the FBI obtained contact information for two victims residing outside of the US on July 23 and August 8, 2008, respectively. The FBI victim specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to each victim through the FBI representative at the US Diplomatic Mission for each country. This letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter that the FBI had sent to victims in 20067 and 8 in that it identified each recipient as a possible victim of a federal crime and listed her eight CVRA rights. The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in a State Court on June 30, 2008 or that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state plea. Rather like the previous FBI VNS generated letter, the the letter requested the victim's assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case for each one of the two victims residing outside of the U.S. vilafauna, who also drafted a notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and U.S. code 18 Section 2255 process, which were to be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether the USAO's letters were delivered to the two victims. August, September 2008 the federal court orders the USAO to disclose the NPA to victims and the USAO sends a revised victim notification letter. On August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to the npa. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA. On August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of the NPA subjective to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce the NPA to other identified victims upon request. If any individual who has been identified by the USAO as victims of Epstein and or any attorneys for those individuals request the opportunity to review the npa, then the USAO shall produce the NPA to those individuals so long as those individuals also agree that they shall not disclose the NPA or its terms to any third party absent further court order following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard. In September 2008, the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims and attorneys for representative victims concerning Epstein's state court guilty plea and his agreement to not contest liability and victim civil suits brought under US code 18 section 2255. The September letter appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the government's earlier notification letter referenced language concerning U.S. code 18 section 2255 that the government had proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein attorney Sanchez, but that the defense had not accepted. As a result of the defense objection, Villefana determined that she was obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the references to the December letter. Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the party's intent to implement U.S. code 18 section 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's waiver of his rights to contest liability of under the provision. In addition, the September letter described the appointment of a special master, the Special Master's selection of an attorney to represent the victims in their U.S. code 18 section 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that Epstein's agreement to pay for attorney fees did not extend to contested litigation of against him. The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning providing victims with copies of the npa. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the victims that they could receive a copy of the npa. In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make available to any designated victim and or her attorney a copy of the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States so long as the victim and or attorney reviews, signs, and agrees to the be bound by a protective order entered by the court. If the victim would like to review the agreement, please let me know and I will provide a copy of the protective order for her signature. The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVR litigation, the defense argued that there was no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged victims with notice that the NPA is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality provisions of the npa. In response and in consultation with the USAO Management, Vilafana revives the paragraph as in addition, there has been litigation between the United States and two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein. The attorney selected by the Special Master can provide further guidance on this issue or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the court's order in the CBRA litigation. On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been filed in the state case. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right there and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Part F 2010-2011 department and congressional actions regarding interpretation of the CVRA. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the OIG report into Jeffrey Epstein's NPA F 2010-2011 department and congressional Actions Regarding Interpretation of the CVRA in connection with the department's 2010 efforts to update its 2005 guidelines, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened the Victims of Crimes Working Group that asked OLC to revisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of crime victim under the CVRA and solicited input concerning the issue from the Department components and federal law enforcement agencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled the Availability of Crime Victims Rights under the Crime Victim Rights act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's language, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from the Department components, OLC reaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed by complaint, information, or indictment and the rights cease to be available if all charges are dismissed, either voluntarily or on the merits, or if the government declines to bring formal charges after the filing of a complaint. After OLC issued its opinion, the department revised the 2005 guidelines in October of 2011, but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal charges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation, but before a defendant is charged in circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has been brought. Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court. The use of the word should in 2011 guidelines indicates that personnel are expected to take the action unless there is an appropriate articulable reason not to do so. Nevertheless, the the required consultation may be general in nature and does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer. The revisions also specified that a USAS were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings. On November 2, 2011, US Senator John Kyl, a co sponsor of the CVRA, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder arguing that the 2011 guidelines revision conflicted quite clearly with the CVRA's plain language because the 2011 guidelines did not extend any rights to victims until charges have been filed. The Department's response emphasized that the Department had made its best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to assert, support, and defend crime victim rights. The Response also referenced OLC's December 2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting that the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and considered victims views about prospective plea negotiations even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court. In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or Deferred Prosecution Agreement 10 the right to be informed of the rights under the section and the services described in section 503 of the Victim Rights and Restitution act of 1990, U.S. code 4210607 and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous federal civil lawsuits against Epstein brought in the same district were transferred to the same judge as related cases as a matter of judicial economy. Pursuant to the local rules. As the parties agreed to settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed. Several of the victims who had settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to maintain their anonymity and not further disseminate their identities to the CVRA petitioners. In the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights to confer by 1 negotiating and signing the NPA without the victim input, 2 sending letters to the victims claiming that that the matter was under investigation after the NPA was already signed and three not properly informing the victims that the state plea would also resolve the federal investigation. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the NPA and resolved the federal investigation. During the litigation, the USAO argued that one the victims had no right to notice or conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre charge 2 the government's letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was under investigation because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that Epstein would plead guilty and three Vilafana contacted the petitioner's attorney prior to Epstein's state plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Vilafana told OPR that while there were valid reasons for the government's position that CVRA rights do not apply pre charge, this is a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously prepared to spend much more time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every victim. Over the course of the litigation, the District Court made various rulings interpreting the provisions of the cvra, including the court's key conclusion that victims CVRA rights attach before the government brings formal charges against a defendant. The court also held that one the CVRA authorizes the rescission or reopening of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non prosecution agreement reached in violation of of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the statute 2 the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre charge prosecutorial agreements 3 the CVRA's reasonable right to confer extends to pre charge state of criminal investigations and proceedings. 4 the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render the DOE petitioners victims under the CVRA and five questions pertaining to the equitable defense of are properly left for resolution after development of full evidentiary record. On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that once the government failed to advise the victims about the intention to enter into the npa, a violation of the CVRA occurred. The government did not dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the npa, and the court concluded that, at a bare minimum, the CVRA required the government to inform petitioners that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein. The court found the post NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing misled the victims to believe that the federal prosecution was still a possibility and that it was a material omission for the government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation of about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. The Court relied on Dean and BP Products to support its holding and noted that the government's action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because unlike a plea agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing, once an NPA is entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard regarding any aspect of the case. The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with victims while it simultaneously engaged in lengthy negotiations with Epstein's counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be made public or filed with the court. Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the 2005 guidelines for the Department's position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged, the court was not persuaded that the guidelines were the basis for the government's decision to withhold information about the NPA from the victims. The court found that the government's reliance on the 2005 guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with Epstein's attorneys in which the government acknowledged that it had obligations to notify the victims. The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission of the npa, a written apology to all victims from the government, a meeting with Acosta, Vilafana, and her supervisors, access to government records, including grand jury materials, training for USAO employees, and monetary sanctions and attorney fees following Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death while in custody. On September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied the petitioner's motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the court, namely whether the government's violation of petitioners rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA moot. The court did not order the government to take corrective measures but stated that it fully expects the government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims. The court also denied the petitioner's request for attorney fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith because, although unsuccessful on the merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the cvra, the government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation. On September 30, 2019, Wild appealed the district court's rejection of the requested remedies through a petition for a writ of mandamus filed with the U.S. court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for Wild and regret for the manner in which it communicated with her in the past. Nevertheless, the government argued that as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach prior to the government charging a case, and thus the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because no criminal charges were brought. The government conceded, however, that with no regard to the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted. Petitioner and other Epstein victims deserved to be treated with fairness and respect and to be conferred with on the criminal case, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do. During oral argument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of wild. The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with Ms. Wild about what was going on with respect to the npa and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way with Ms. Wild, and for that we are genuinely sorry. On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied Wilde's petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the CVRA does not apply before the commencement of criminal proceedings and thus on the facts of this case does not provide the petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights. The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the language of the statute, the legislative history, the previous court decisions. The court distinguished and dean as dictum consisting of a three sentence discussion devoid of any analysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings. The Court noted that its interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning victims standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in implementing regulations. Finally, the Court raised separation of powers concerned with Wild and the dissenting judge's interpretation of victims standing under the cvra, noting that such an interpretation would interfere with prosecutorial discretion. Nevertheless, the Court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying case, stating the government seemingly deferred to Epstein's lawyers regarding information it provided victims about the NPA and that its efforts seemed to have graduated from passive non disclosure to or at least close to active misrepresentation. The Court concluded that although it seems obvious that the government should should have consulted with petitioner and other victims before negotiating and executing Epstein's npa, the Court could not conclude that the government was obligated to do so. In addition, the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly worded opinion asserting that the majority's statutory interpretation was contorted because the plan and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include a post indictment temporal restriction. On May 5, 2020, Weill filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for a rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's opinion as of the date of this report. A briefing scheduled has been issued and oral argument is set for December 3, 2020. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here and then the next episode dealing with the topic. We'll 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 back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're getting right back to the Jeffrey Epstein OIG Report into the NPA Chapter 3 Part 2 Applicable Standards I Statutory Provisions pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRR A during the relevant time period are set forth A. The CVRA U.S. code 18 section 3771 A. Rights of crime Victims A crime victim has the following 1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused 2. The right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or any parole proceeding involving the crime or or of any release or escape of the accused. 3. The right not to exclude from any such public court proceeding unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at the proceeding. 4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding. 5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case. 6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. 8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy. Best Efforts to accord rights 1. Government officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of and accorded the rights described in subsection A. E. Definitions Crime Victim in general the term crime victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. B. The Victims Rights and Restitution act of 1990 v. RRA U.S. code 34, Section 20141. Services to Family formerly cited as U.S. code 42, Section 10607. Identification of Victims at the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, a responsible official 1. Identify the victim or victims of a crime. 2. Inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection C and 3. Inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services Described in subsection c. C. Description of services 1. A responsible official a Inform the victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and social services inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment, and other support to the victim and d Assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs A, B, and C. 2. A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender. 3. During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of a. The status of the investigation of the crime to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation b. The arrest of a suspected offender c. The filing of charges against the suspected offender d. The scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or under section 10606 of title 42 is entitled to attend e. The release or detention status of an offender or a suspected offender f The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo catendre or the rendering of a verdict after trial and g The sentence imposed on an offender, including the date on which the offender will be eligible for parole. 4. During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a waiting area, removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense witnesses. 2. The term victim means a person that has suffered direct physical or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime. 2. Department Policy the 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In 2005, the Department revised its Guidelines for Victims and Witness Assistance in order to incorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 guidelines was to establish guidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative, prosecutorial, and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime. The relevant portions of the 2005 guidelines are as Article 4 services to victims and witnesses the investigation stage the investigative agency's responsibility begins with the report of the crime and extends through the prosecution of the case. In some instances, when explicitly stated the investigative agency's responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting agency when charges are filed. 2. Identification of victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime and at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime. 3. Description of services a. Information, notice and referral 1. Initial information and notice. Responsible officials must advise a victim pursuant at the earliest opportunity after detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation. To comply with this requirement, it is recommended that victims be given a printed brochure or card that briefly describes their rights and the available services, identifies the local service providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim, witness coordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of a. His or her rights as enumerated in U.S. code 18, Section 3771 a. B. His or her right entitlement on request to the Services listed in U.S. code 42 section 10607 c. C. The name, title, business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom such a request for services should be addressed. D. The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social services. E. The availability of any restitution or or other relief, including crime victim compensation programs to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained. Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling, treatment and other support to the victim. I. The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking the option of being included in VNs available protections from intimidation and harassment. 3. Notice during the Investigation during the investigation of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notice. A. The status of the investigation of a crime to the extent that it is appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation. B. The arrest of a suspected offender The Prosecution Stage the prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through pre sentencing legal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks. 1. Responsible for cases in which charges have been instituted the responsible official in the U.S. attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending. 2. Services to crime victims. B. Information, notice and referrals 1. Notice of rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated in US Code 18, Section 3771. 2. Notice of right to seek counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in U.S. code 18, Section 3771A. 3. Notice of right to attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the crime victim about the victim's right to attend the trial regardless of whether the victim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of the crime on the victim during sentencing. 4. Notice of case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide the victim, using vns where appropriate, with reasonable notice of a v. The filing of charges against a suspected offender B. The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender. C. The schedule of court proceedings I. The responsible official shall provide the victim with reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public court proceeding or parole proceeding that involves the crime against the victim. In the event of an emergency or other last minute hearing or change in the time or date of a hearing, the responsible official should consider providing notice by telephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to post sentencing proceedings as well. 2. The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the scheduling or rescheduling of any of the court proceedings that the victim or witness is required or entitled to attend the acceptance of a plea of guilty or or nolo contendre or the rendering of a verdict after the trial if the offender is convicted the sentence and conditions of supervised release, if any, that are imposed. 6. Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim in contacting the person or offices responsible for providing services and relief. C. Consultation with government Attorney 1. In general, a victim has the reasonable right to confer with an attorney for the government in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be construed to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be available to consult with victims about major case decisions such as dismissals, release of the accused, pending judicial proceedings when such release is for non investigative purposes, plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because victims are not clients, they may become adverse to the government and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors and such consultations may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the prosecutor's obligations under applicable Rules of Professional Conduct. Representatives of the department should take care to inform victims that neither the department's advocacy for victims nor any of the other effort that the department may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney client relationship between such victims and the lawyers for the government. Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims. 2. Prosecutor availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult with victims for regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court of the reasonable concerns that may have been conveyed to the prosecutor. 3. Proposed plea agreements Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays in the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor. 3. Proposed plea agreements Responsible officials should make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of and consider victims views about prospective plea negotiations. In determining what is reasonable, the responsible official should consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering views in the context of of the particular case, including but not limited to the following a. The impact on public safety and risks to personnel safety B. The number of victims C. Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea D. Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions E. Whether there is another need for confidentiality F. Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with Section 3, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.