DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 17, 2021. The Court has decided to exclude a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) involving Epstein from evidence, arguing that while the defense can cross-examine witnesses for bias or financial incentives, the NPA itself is not relevant. The ruling notes that the NPA does not provide protection in the current jurisdiction, distinguishing it from the Southern District of Florida where a witness might be protected.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), a civil suit, and as having agreed to pay for a lawyer...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The entity making the ruling to exclude the non-prosecution agreement from evidence.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the jurisdiction where a witness covered by the NPA would remain protected.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a jurisdiction where the NPA does not provide protection. The context implies this is a different distri...
|
Relationships (2)
Epstein was the defendant in a civil suit brought by the victim, which ended in a settlement. Under an NPA, he also agreed to pay for her lawyer and not contest the suit.
A witness received immunity from criminal prosecution under a non-prosecution agreement involving Epstein.
Key Quotes (2)
"The Court will exclude from evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and its particular terms."Source
— The Court
(A direct ruling on the admissibility of the NPA as evidence in the current case.)
DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg
Quote #1
"as I already ruled, the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of"Source
— The Court
(The judge is reiterating a previous ruling that the NPA is not applicable in the jurisdiction of the current case.)
DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,600 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 24
LB1TMAX1
LB1TMAX1
ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from
evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and
its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant
to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One
anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution
under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to
pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to
testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him.
The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged
victim.
Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine
witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination
about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or
others and related financial incentive are fair grounds.
Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined
about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive.
And if it were the case that any witness were to receive
testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may
cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained
any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates
to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA
might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA
in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled,
the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of
Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from
evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and
its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant
to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One
anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution
under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to
pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to
testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him.
The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged
victim.
Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine
witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination
about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or
others and related financial incentive are fair grounds.
Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined
about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive.
And if it were the case that any witness were to receive
testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may
cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained
any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates
to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA
might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA
in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled,
the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008406
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document