DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
698 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
6
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
698 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated February 28, 2023, is a page from a court filing that argues about the scope of plea agreements. It discusses whether a plea agreement made with a U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district can prevent prosecutions in other districts, citing several legal precedents like United States v. Alessi and United States v. Russo. The document uses Leslie Groff, an assistant to Epstein, as an example and analyzes factors such as whether other USAOs or the Department of Justice were involved in the negotiations.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the employer of Leslie Groff at his New York office.
|
|
| Leslie Groff | assistant |
Cited as an example of an assistant who worked for Epstein out of his New York office.
|
| Doe | Plaintiff |
Mentioned in the case name Doe v. Indyke et al.
|
| Indyke | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case name Doe v. Indyke et al.
|
| Alessi | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. Alessi.
|
| Russo | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. Russo.
|
| D’Amico | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. D’Amico.
|
| Laskow | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case name United States v. Laskow.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a USAO negotiating a plea agreement and its authority to bind other USAOs.
|
| Department of Justice | government agency |
Mentioned as the parent organization of USAOs.
|
| SDNY USAO | government agency |
Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office, mentioned as not being consulted or involved in plea negotiatio...
|
Timeline (2 events)
An investigation was taking place in the Eastern District at the time a plea was being negotiated in the Central District, as cited in the Laskow case.
Eastern District
Locations (6)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Epstein's office where Leslie Groff worked.
|
|
|
Southern District of Florida, location of the Doe v. Indyke et al. case.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, location of the United States v. D’Amico case.
|
|
|
Eastern District of New York, location of the United States v. Laskow case.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the Laskow case as the district where a plea was negotiated without knowledge of an investigation in the...
|
|
|
Mentioned in the Laskow case as the location of an investigation unknown to the Central District.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states, "Leslie Groff worked for Epstein out of the New York Office."
Key Quotes (3)
"A promise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor."Source
— United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986)
(A quote from a legal precedent supporting the idea that a promise to bind other districts does not need to be explicit.)
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
Quote #1
"offers no meaningful support for his claim that he ‘reasonably understood’ the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District. . . . He does not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."Source
— United States v. D’Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(A finding from a case used as an example of factors to consider, specifically the involvement of other USAOs in a plea agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
Quote #2
"defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated. . . . The Central District, unaware of defendants’ potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have"Source
— United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.)
(A quote from a case illustrating that a district cannot bind another district regarding criminal liability it is unaware of.)
DOJ-OGR-00021097.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,693 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page50 of 113
its face immunizes assistants who worked for Epstein out of his New York office.
For example, Leslie Groff worked for Epstein out of the New York Office. Tr. 201;
See Doe v. Indyke et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08469-PKC, Dkt No. 1 (S.D. Fla.).
For example, Leslie Groff worked for Epstein out of the New York Office. Tr. 201;
See Doe v. Indyke et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08469-PKC, Dkt No. 1 (S.D. Fla.).
Moreover, a promise to bind other districts need not be express; rather, it can
be inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor, see United
States v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139, 1153-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97
S.Ct. 384 (1976). United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A
promise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between
defendant and prosecutor.”) One relevant factor in this analysis is the extent to
which the USAO negotiating the plea agreement acted on its own, as opposed to
involving other USAOs or other offices within the Department of Justice. Cf., e.g.,
United States v. D’Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that
defendant “offers no meaningful support for his claim that he ‘reasonably
understood’ the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District. . . . He
does not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or
involved in the plea negotiations.”); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851,
854 (E.D.N.Y.) (“defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge
of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the
Central District plea was being negotiated. . . . The Central District, unaware of
defendants’ potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have
be inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor, see United
States v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139, 1153-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97
S.Ct. 384 (1976). United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A
promise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between
defendant and prosecutor.”) One relevant factor in this analysis is the extent to
which the USAO negotiating the plea agreement acted on its own, as opposed to
involving other USAOs or other offices within the Department of Justice. Cf., e.g.,
United States v. D’Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that
defendant “offers no meaningful support for his claim that he ‘reasonably
understood’ the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District. . . . He
does not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or
involved in the plea negotiations.”); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851,
854 (E.D.N.Y.) (“defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge
of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the
Central District plea was being negotiated. . . . The Central District, unaware of
defendants’ potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have
35
DOJ-OGR-00021097
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document