DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
659 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
659 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the legal precedent set in the Annabi case concerning the scope of plea agreements. It explains the "Annabi rule," which holds that a plea agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's office in the district where it was made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document also highlights that this rule has been sharply criticized by other courts, such as in U.S. v. Gebbie, for lacking a sound analytical basis.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Annabi |
Subject of a legal case and rule ("Annabi rule") that has been sharply criticized.
|
|
| Gebbie |
A party in the case U.S. v. Gebbie, which criticized the Annabi rule.
|
|
| Abbamonte |
A party in the case U.S. v. Abbamonte, cited in support of the Annabi decision.
|
|
| Alessi |
A party in the case U.S. v. Alessi, cited in support of the Annabi decision.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in a plea agreement that agrees to dismiss counts of an indictment.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of being potentially barred from reprosecuting dismissed charges.
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body that made the ruling in the Annabi case.
|
| office of the United States Attorney | Government agency |
The entity bound by a plea agreement within a specific district.
|
| 3d Cir. | Judicial body |
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided U.S. v. Gebbie.
|
| 2d Cir. | Judicial body |
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided U.S. v. Abbamonte and U.S. v. Alessi.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2002
The ruling in U.S. v. Gebbie, where a circuit court criticized the Annabi rule as lacking a sound basis.
3d Cir.
Key Quotes (6)
"[a] plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment...might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district...."Source
— The Court
(Acknowledging the counterintuitive nature of the Annabi ruling.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #1
"the law has evolved to the contrary"Source
— The Court
(Declaring the legal principle regarding the scope of plea agreements.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #2
"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction."Source
— The Court
(Stating the specific legal rule established in the Annabi case.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #3
"the new charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant application of [this] rule concerning construction of plea agreements."Source
— The Court
(The conclusion reached in the Annabi case regarding conspiracies alleged in SDNY and EDNY indictments.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #4
"unable to discern a sound basis for the [Annabi] rule"Source
— One circuit
(A quote from U.S. v. Gebbie criticizing the Annabi decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #5
"really has no analytically sound foundation."Source
— One circuit
(A quote from U.S. v. Gebbie further criticizing the Annabi decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,574 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page33 of 113
this result was highly counterintuitive, acknowledging that “[a] plea agreement
whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of
an indictment...might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the
dismissed charges in any judicial district....” Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court
declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,” adding, “[a] plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader
restriction.” Id. The Court concluded that, because the conspiracy alleged in the
SDNY indictment “extended for an additional two years” beyond the date of the
conspiracy alleged in the EDNY indictment, “the new charges are sufficiently
distinct at least to warrant application of [this] rule concerning construction of plea
agreements.” Id.
whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of
an indictment...might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the
dismissed charges in any judicial district....” Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court
declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,” adding, “[a] plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader
restriction.” Id. The Court concluded that, because the conspiracy alleged in the
SDNY indictment “extended for an additional two years” beyond the date of the
conspiracy alleged in the EDNY indictment, “the new charges are sufficiently
distinct at least to warrant application of [this] rule concerning construction of plea
agreements.” Id.
Annabi has been sharply criticized. One circuit said it was “unable to
discern a sound basis for the [Annabi] rule,” adding that the decision “really has no
analytically sound foundation.” U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547 (3d Cir. 2002).
Annabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of its statement that “[a]
plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district
in which the plea is entered.” 771 F.2d at 672 (citing U.S. v. Abbamonte, 759 F.2d
1065 (2d Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976); and U.S. v.
discern a sound basis for the [Annabi] rule,” adding that the decision “really has no
analytically sound foundation.” U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547 (3d Cir. 2002).
Annabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of its statement that “[a]
plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district
in which the plea is entered.” 771 F.2d at 672 (citing U.S. v. Abbamonte, 759 F.2d
1065 (2d Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976); and U.S. v.
18
DOJ-OGR-00021080
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document