[41005/006
05/16/2008 11:17 FAX os 05/18/08 FRI 11:09 FAX
the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached.” USAM 9-2.03 W(C). Our understanding is - that the state case is stil] pending. As such, the procedural posture of the state case does not implicate the petite policy.
the policy “does not apply ... where the [state] prosecution, involved only 4 minor part of the contemplated federal charges.” USAM 9-2.03 1(B). Based on our understanding of the possible federal charges and existing state charges, we do not think the petite policy would be an issue should federal proceedings take place,
Federalism and Prosecutorial Discretion. All of the above issues essentially ask whether a federal prosecution can proceed. We understand, however, that you also ask whether a federal prosecution skoudd proceed, even in the event that all of the elements of a federal offense could be proven. On this issue, you raised two arguments: thal the conduct at issue here is traditional ly a4 state concern because the activity is entirely local, and that the typical prosecution under federal
policy that a United States Attomey’s Office should not pursue a prosecution. We do not think
Simply, the commercial sexual exploitation of children is a federal concern, even when the conduct is local, and tegardless of whether the defendant provided the child (the “pimp”) or
fraud, or coercion was used. Indeed, the point being made in that letter is that the Department’s efforts are Properly focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the exploitation of adults through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, As such, there is no inconsistency between the position taken in that letter and the federal prosecution of wholly local instances of the commercial Sexual exploitation of children,
If Congress wanted to limit the reach of federal statutes only to those who profit from the commercial sexual exploitation of children, or only to those who actually traffic children across state lines, it could have done so. It did not. Finally, that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive, We can say with confidence that this case is consistent in principle with other federal prosecutions nationwide. As such, Mr, Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursve 4 prosecution even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute,
Conclusion. After carefully considering all the factual and legal issues taised, as well as the arguments concerning the general propriety of a federal case against Mr. Epstein on these
4
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012673