DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
809 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (government's opposition to motion)
File Size:
809 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the S2 Indictment; prosecution argues Double Jeopardy does not apply to her because she has not previously...
|
| Abbamonte | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced in case law citation regarding double jeopardy protections.
|
| Alessi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced in case law citation regarding double jeopardy protections.
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced case (Annabi, 771 F.2d) used to argue interpretation of plea agreements and double jeopardy.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
The court whose opinion is being analyzed and cited as precedent.
|
|
| Eastern District |
Referenced in the block quote regarding dismissed charges in a prior case.
|
|
| Southern District |
Referenced in the block quote regarding charges resulting from a conspiratorial agreement.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case law.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case law.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment.
Key Quotes (2)
"As discussed in greater detail below, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a prosecution in this case because Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
Quote #1
"Ignoring the Double Jeopardy language in Annabi, the defendant argues that the phrase 'identical to the dismissed charges' somehow creates a different rule of interpretation for plea agreements..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document