DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
41.4 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
3
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document/court filing
File Size:
41.4 KB
Summary
This document, likely a legal filing, discusses the interpretation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) concerning Epstein and his co-conspirators. It analyzes the legal principle 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' in relation to the NPA's terms, highlighting how the agreement defers Epstein's prosecution to the State of Florida and includes a clause where the United States agrees not to charge his co-conspirators.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Subject of prosecution/co-conspirator |
referred to in the context of legal protections and prosecution
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| City of Columbus |
Party in a cited legal case (City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc.)
|
|
| Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc. |
Party in a cited legal case (City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc.)
|
|
| Chevron U.S.A. Inc. |
Party in a cited legal case (Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal)
|
|
| State of Florida |
Entity responsible for prosecution in one scenario mentioned in the NPA
|
|
| United States |
Party to the NPA, agreeing to conditions regarding prosecution of Epstein and co-conspirators
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Reference to prosecution by the State of Florida
|
Relationships (3)
NPA refers to 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein'
NPA defers prosecution of Epstein to State of Florida
United States agrees not to institute criminal charges against co-conspirators
Key Quotes (7)
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #1
"use of narrowing terms as to Epstein's protections"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #2
"expressio unius canon "grows weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #3
"The canon depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #4
"prosecution [of Epstein] in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #5
"the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char[g]es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #6
"the United States also agrees"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000234.tif
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,751 characters)
11
reasonably susceptible to petitioner's broad interpreta-
tion.
Petitioner also invokes (Pet. 16-17) the interpretive
principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, in argu-
ing that the NPA's "use of narrowing terms as to Ep-
stein's protections" from prosecution indicates that the
coconspirators clause, which does not contain those
terms, was intended to apply to all districts. But the
expressio unius canon "grows weaker with each differ-
ence in the formulation of the provisions under inspec-
tion." City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker
Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 436 (2002); see Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 81 (2002) ("The canon
depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or
things that should be understood to go hand in hand,
which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensi-
ble inference that the term left out must have been
meant to be excluded."). And the canon therefore does
little work in this case.
The relevant portions of the NPA do not have any
sort of parallelism in their wording or structure that
would suggest the necessity for identical terminology
on this particular point. Compare, e.g., Pet. App. 26a
("prosecution [of Epstein] in this District for these of-
fenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the
State of Florida"), with id. at 31a ("the United States also
agrees that it will not institute any criminal char[g]es
against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"). In-
deed, as noted above, the phrasing of the coconspirators
clause-in which "the United States also agrees" to
forgo certain prosecution of coconspirators, id. at 31a
(emphasis added)-plainly uses "the United States" in
reference to the entity otherwise making the agreement
DOJ-OGR-00000234
reasonably susceptible to petitioner's broad interpreta-
tion.
Petitioner also invokes (Pet. 16-17) the interpretive
principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, in argu-
ing that the NPA's "use of narrowing terms as to Ep-
stein's protections" from prosecution indicates that the
coconspirators clause, which does not contain those
terms, was intended to apply to all districts. But the
expressio unius canon "grows weaker with each differ-
ence in the formulation of the provisions under inspec-
tion." City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker
Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 436 (2002); see Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 81 (2002) ("The canon
depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or
things that should be understood to go hand in hand,
which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensi-
ble inference that the term left out must have been
meant to be excluded."). And the canon therefore does
little work in this case.
The relevant portions of the NPA do not have any
sort of parallelism in their wording or structure that
would suggest the necessity for identical terminology
on this particular point. Compare, e.g., Pet. App. 26a
("prosecution [of Epstein] in this District for these of-
fenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the
State of Florida"), with id. at 31a ("the United States also
agrees that it will not institute any criminal char[g]es
against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"). In-
deed, as noted above, the phrasing of the coconspirators
clause-in which "the United States also agrees" to
forgo certain prosecution of coconspirators, id. at 31a
(emphasis added)-plainly uses "the United States" in
reference to the entity otherwise making the agreement
DOJ-OGR-00000234
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document