DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
1.11 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
8
Organizations
5
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.11 MB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with the defendant (Epstein) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) does not prevent his current prosecution in the Southern District of New York. The prosecution asserts that the language of the NPA explicitly limits its scope to the SDFL and does not cover the alleged conduct or victims in New York. The filing cites specific text from the NPA and legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support its position that one U.S. Attorney's office agreement does not bind another.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Richard M. Berman | Honorable United States District Judge |
Addressed at the top of the document.
|
| R. Alexander Acosta | United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida |
Mentioned as the authority behind the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout the document as the defendant and the subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
|
| Prisco |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Prisco'.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Judge | government agency |
Title of Honorable Richard M. Berman.
|
| The Court | government agency |
Referred to throughout the document, specifically noting something at the parties' initial appearance.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that will address the defendant's arguments.
|
| United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida | government agency |
The office, headed by R. Alexander Acosta, that entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein.
|
| State of Florida | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity in favor of which prosecution was deferred under the NPA.
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | government agency |
Mentioned as having conducted a joint investigation with the United States Attorney's Office.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as having conducted a joint investigation with the FBI and as the entity whose plea agreements do not bind ...
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited for the legal precedent that a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not bind another.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A joint investigation that was the subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Southern District of Florida
A Federal Grand Jury investigation whose offenses were covered by the Non-Prosecution Agreement within the Southern District of Florida.
Southern District of Florida
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where alleged conduct in the instant Indictment occurred and where victims were based.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction where the defendant is currently being prosecuted.
|
|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of Florida, the jurisdiction of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction where the Non-Prosecution Agreement was made.
|
|
|
Location of the original investigations and the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
Relationships (2)
R. Alexander Acosta, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, was the authority behind a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the defendant, Epstein.
The Government is prosecuting Epstein, who is referred to as 'the defendant' throughout the document.
Key Quotes (5)
"THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida."Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement
(Quoted from the prefatory language of the NPA to show its limited scope to the Southern District of Florida.)
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
Quote #1
"no prosecution for the [sex abuse] offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District."Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement
(Quoted from the final paragraph of the NPA's prefatory language to emphasize the prosecution bar was limited to "in this District.")
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein’s signature “is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense” as to any victim whose identity was not disclosed by SDFL to Epstein"Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement
(Quoted from the terms section of the NPA to argue that the parties contemplated prosecutions in other jurisdictions.)
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
Quote #3
"Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer [. . .] prosecution."Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement
(Quoted from the final substantive paragraph of the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
Quote #4
"a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney’s office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another."Source
— United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921
(Cited as legal precedent from the Second Circuit to support the argument that the Florida NPA does not bind the New York prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00000340.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,611 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 12 of 14
Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 12
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 12
IV. The Defendant Raises Legal Arguments Not Relevant Here
Finally, the defendant raises certain legal arguments he contends he will litigate at the appropriate stage and which he further suggests mitigate in favor of bail. None is meritorious, and certainly none should give the Court any comfort whatsoever that the defendant would, if granted bail, refrain from fleeing so he could attempt to vindicate himself via dubious legal strategies. Nevertheless, the Government will address the defendant’s arguments briefly in turn.
A. The Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Preclude Prosecution
As an initial matter, as the Court itself noted at the parties’ initial appearance earlier this week, and as the defendant appears to concede, the instant Indictment charges conduct well beyond the scope of the NPA – that is, alleged conduct that occurred here in New York and involving New York based victims. D. Tr. 6-8; Release Motion at 2. For present purposes, that alone is sufficient to put this issue to rest, because even assuming the defendant were to mount a meritorious challenge to the NPA, he would still have to stand trial on Count Two of the Indictment and additional charges brought based on New York conduct.
But more generally, the reasons the defendant can be prosecuted in the Southern District of New York—or anywhere else outside the SDFL—are manifold. The language of the NPA overwhelmingly refers to the SDFL, and the core terms and text of the agreement are limited to the SDFL. The prefatory language states: “THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida.”⁷ The final paragraph of the prefatory language also states, among other things, that after fulfilling the terms of the agreement, “no prosecution for the [sex abuse] offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District.”
In its terms section, the NPA further states that Epstein’s signature “is not to be construed as an admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense” as to any victim whose identity was not disclosed by SDFL to Epstein, as provided for in the NPA, and additionally states that neither Epstein’s signature nor any resulting waivers or civil settlements “are to be construed as admissions or evidence of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other defense as to any person.” These provisions show the parties contemplated possible criminal prosecutions in other jurisdictions and/or based on victims not initially identified in the Florida investigations (whether in Florida or elsewhere). The final substantive paragraph of the NPA states that “Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer [. . .] prosecution.”
It is well settled in the Second Circuit that “a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney’s office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another.” United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921
⁷ All emphases relating to the NPA are added unless otherwise specified.
DOJ-OGR-00000340
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document