← Back to home

Document doj-ogr-00030476

AI Analysis

Summary: The letter, dated June 5, 2006, from Gerald B. Lefcourt to Lanna Belohlavek, discusses plea negotiation issues for Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on the implications of pleading to aggravated assault versus misdemeanor solicitation, and the concern about sex offender registration in various jurisdictions.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the negotiation process and considerations involved in a high-profile case involving Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting concerns about sex offender registration and the nature of the charges.
Key Topics: Plea negotiation for Jeffrey Epstein Sex offender registration implications Charge of felony aggravated assault vs. misdemeanor solicitation
Key People:
  • Jeffrey Epstein - The client being represented by the law firm
  • Gerald B. Lefcourt - Attorney representing Jeffrey Epstein
  • Lanna Belohlavek - Florida State Attorney's Office, recipient of the letter

Full Text

LAW OFFICES OF Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 148 EAST 78TH STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B. LEFCOURT lefcourt@lefcourtlaw.com SHERYL E. REICH reich@lefcourtlaw.com RENATO C. STABILE rstabile@lefcourtlaw.com FAITH A. FRIEDMAN ffriedman@lefcourtlaw.com TELEPHONE (212) 737-0400 FACSIMILE (212) 968-6192 June 5, 2006 BY HAND Lanna Belohlavek Florida State Attorney's Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Belohlavek: As a follow up to our meeting of June 1, 2006, held in an attempt to resolve this matter, we write to address the following issues which have arisen: (1) the risk, were the client to plead to aggravated assault in Florida, that he might be subject to sex-offender registration statutes in other jurisdictions, now or in the future; (2) the nature of the charge of felony "aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony," and how it does not reflect the allegations herein; and, (3) whether a felony conviction itself is justified based on the available evidence. At the outset of our June 1, 2006 meeting, we were mindful that an understanding had been reached with prior counsel. It was reached, however, with the clear and joint understanding that the client would not be subjected to sex offender registration requirements in any state or foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, the limited time provided did not allow for an opportunity to conduct an even cursory investigation or research into the ramifications. Were any charge to be brought, having now learned of the serious danger a plea to felony aggravated assault presents with regard to sex offender registration, coupled with the facts presented at our meeting and outlined below, we strongly believe that a plea to misdemeanor solicitation is the more appropriate resolution. As we discussed, this could include an agreed upon allocution, as we are mindful of your concern about labeling the girls "prostitutes." In this regard, as we discussed, the law and relevant statute are clear that the complaining witness need not be a "prostitute" in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. Page 9 of 131