DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
939 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Department of justice office of professional responsibility (opr) report / court filing
File Size:
939 KB
Summary
This document appears to be page 129 of a Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, filed within the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal precedents (such as *United States v. Marquez* and *State v. Frazier*) to establish that plea agreements involving promises of leniency toward third parties are generally valid and do not constitute an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. It also establishes that the five attorneys subject to this OPR investigation were evaluated under the local rules of the Southern District of Florida.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Five subject attorneys | Subjects of OPR Report |
Unidentified in this specific page, but referred to as the subjects of the report regarding professional conduct.
|
| Marquez | Defendant (Case citation) |
Cited in United States v. Marquez regarding plea voluntariness.
|
| Martin | Defendant (Case citation) |
Cited in Martin v. Kemp regarding threats to prosecute a wife.
|
| Kemp | Respondent (Case citation) |
Cited in Martin v. Kemp.
|
| Stinson | Defendant (Case citation) |
Cited in Stinson v. State regarding good faith in third-party prosecution threats.
|
| Frazier | Defendant (Case citation) |
Cited in State v. Frazier regarding enforcing promises of leniency to third parties.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; conducting the investigation and report.
|
|
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
Jurisdiction whose local rules OPR applied.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Parent organization (implied by DOJ-OGR footer).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited case jurisdiction).
|
|
| 11th Cir. |
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (cited case jurisdiction).
|
|
| Fla. App. |
Florida Appellate Court (cited case jurisdiction).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Legal jurisdiction relevant to the 'subject attorneys' and applicable rules.
|
|
|
State mentioned regarding bar membership and case law.
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant
→
Family/Leverage
→
Third Party (Wife/Niece/Nephew)
Cited cases discuss using promises of leniency toward family members (wives, nieces, nephews) to secure guilty pleas from defendants.
Text refers to 'five subject attorneys' being analyzed by OPR regarding professional conduct rules.
Key Quotes (4)
"Numerous courts have made clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a promise of leniency towards a third party"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
Quote #1
"courts have not suggested that a prosecutor’s promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
Quote #2
"OPR applied the local rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
Quote #3
"The subjects’ membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPR’s conclusions in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021329.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document