• • B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea Hearing Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decisio that the USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the Stat mey's ev PR judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "to the disc of th State zed that Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that A' t ct all of the the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlike rm the victims victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the star that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreemen at resolved the federal investigation into their own cases.4n S, Even taking into account Acosta's views on princip of' federalism and his reluctance to the problems that would likely stem interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recogni tt ey's Office and made appropriate from passing the task of notifying victims to the Sta propriate notification would have efforts to ensure that those problems were mini esti tion that the USAO had declined to included advising victims identified in the fede the State Attorney, and, at a minimum, bring charges and that the matter was being inf ation. Acosta could have interacted with provided the victims with Belohlavek's rot to do so, to ensure the state intended to make the State Attorney, or in