DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
824 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
824 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses the implications of setting aside a Non-Prosecution Agreement, particularly concerning the criminal prosecution of Epstein in the Southern District of Florida. It cites several legal precedents emphasizing due process requirements for the government to adhere to plea bargains and the necessity of all contracting parties being involved in actions challenging a contract's validity. The document also touches upon the potential jurisdictional issues under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine if the Non-Prosecution Agreement were invalidated.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Santobello | Party in legal case |
Plaintiff in the cited case Santobello v. New York
|
| Harvey | Party in legal case |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Harvey
|
| Epstein | Contracting party, Defendant |
Subject of a criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida; party to a Non-Prosecution Agreement; subject ...
|
| Dawavendewa | Party in legal case |
Plaintiff in the cited case Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist.
|
| Tillman | Party in legal case |
Defendant in the cited case Casale v. Tillman
|
| Powell | Party in legal case |
Party in the cited case Powell v. Powell
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in the cited case United States v. Harvey; government entity involved in the Non-Prosecution Agreement; prosecutor
|
| New York | Government entity |
Defendant in the cited case Santobello v. New York
|
| Petitioners | Legal entity / Group |
Requested invalidation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; consulted by the United States
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The body considering the legal arguments and whose jurisdiction is discussed
|
| U.S. Dept. of Educ. | Government agency |
Organization whose Secretary is a defendant in the cited case School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. De...
|
| School Dist. of City of Pontiac | Educational institution / Government agency |
Plaintiff in the cited case School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Educ.
|
| Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist. | Utility / Government agency |
Defendant in the cited case Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Analysis of legal principles regarding the setting aside of a Non-Prosecution Agreement, specifically concerning Epstein's criminal prosecution and guilty plea, and the necessity of parties in contract challenges.
Southern District of Florida
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location associated with the legal case Santobello v. New York
|
|
|
Location of the criminal prosecution against Epstein
|
Relationships (1)
The United States and Epstein are parties to a Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Key Quotes (4)
"[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled."Source
— Santobello v. New York (implied)
(Legal principle regarding the fulfillment of promises in plea agreements)
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
Quote #1
"Due process requires the government to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes."Source
— United States v. Harvey (implied)
(Legal principle regarding government adherence to plea bargains and immunity agreements)
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
Quote #2
"It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . . . ."Source
— School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Educ. (implied)
(Legal principle regarding necessary parties in actions challenging contract validity)
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
Quote #3
"[A] party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that subsequent 18-month state incarceration)."Source
— Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist. (implied)
(Legal principle regarding indispensable parties in litigation challenging a contract)
DOJ-OGR-00000309.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,387 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80136-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2019 Page 5 of 20
obligations undertaken therein to be set aside.⁴ See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
262 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the
prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise
must be fulfilled.”); United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir. 1989) (“Due
process requires the government to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity
agreement it makes.”). Indeed, even if this Court were somehow to set aside the Non-
Prosecution Agreement on the authority of the CVRA, and even if after consultation with
Petitioners the United States determined that it would be proper and desirable to institute a
criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida against Epstein on the criminal charges
contemplated in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States would still be
constitutionally required to adhere to the negotiated terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
262 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the
prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise
must be fulfilled.”); United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir. 1989) (“Due
process requires the government to adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity
agreement it makes.”). Indeed, even if this Court were somehow to set aside the Non-
Prosecution Agreement on the authority of the CVRA, and even if after consultation with
Petitioners the United States determined that it would be proper and desirable to institute a
criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida against Epstein on the criminal charges
contemplated in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States would still be
constitutionally required to adhere to the negotiated terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Due process considerations further bar this Court from setting aside a non-prosecution
agreement that grants contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a
party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary
of U.S. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) (“It is hornbook law that all parties to a
contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . . . .”); Dawavendewa v. Salt River
Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] party to a contract is
necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that
agreement that grants contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a
party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary
of U.S. Dept. of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) (“It is hornbook law that all parties to a
contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity . . . .”); Dawavendewa v. Salt River
Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] party to a contract is
necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that
subsequent 18-month state incarceration).
⁴ To the extent that the Petitioners’ requested invalidation of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement would implicitly reject and nullify the correctness of both the state court’s acceptance
of Epstein’s guilty plea and the resulting judgment of conviction –which were induced in part by
the Non-Prosecution Agreement – such judicial action might raise additional questions about this
Court’s jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d
1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996).
4
⁴ To the extent that the Petitioners’ requested invalidation of the Non-Prosecution
Agreement would implicitly reject and nullify the correctness of both the state court’s acceptance
of Epstein’s guilty plea and the resulting judgment of conviction –which were induced in part by
the Non-Prosecution Agreement – such judicial action might raise additional questions about this
Court’s jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d
1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996).
4
DOJ-OGR-00000309
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document