DOJ-OGR-00004720.jpg
749 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
749 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that the defendant was never subjected to double jeopardy in the Southern District of Florida. It asserts that jeopardy never attached because she was never indicted, convicted, or faced adjudication of facts for the offenses in question. The document cites several legal precedents to support the claim that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving the defendant and Epstein did not trigger jeopardy protections as no indictment was ever filed.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dionisio |
Cited in a legal case, Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84, regarding plea agreements and jeopardy.
|
|
| Olmeda | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as someone who, like the defendant, was never indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida ...
|
|
| Herrera | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Herrera, No. 02 Cr. 477 (LAK), 2002 WL 31133029, regarding when jeopardy attaches.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida | government agency |
Mentioned as the court where the defendant was never placed in jeopardy.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
Referenced in the context of a proposed indictment that was never filed.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation: Michigan, 568 U.S. 313, 319 (2013).
|
|
|
The jurisdiction where the defendant was allegedly never placed in jeopardy and where a grand jury did not indict the...
|
|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Herrera.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that 'neither the defendant nor Epstein was ever indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida nor found guilty of any federal offense' in the context of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
Key Quotes (3)
"a plea agreement in which the court was directly involved in a defendant’s decision to plead guilty to two counts, in exchange for an agreement to drop with prejudice a third count, all on the basis of findings of certain facts which support that agreement, might perhaps constitute a pretrial fact-finding that implicated jeopardy in its proper sense of risk of exposure."Source
— Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84
(Used as an example of a situation where jeopardy might attach to a plea agreement, which is contrasted with the defendant's situation.)
DOJ-OGR-00004720.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]n essence, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants against” second prosecutions after acquittal or conviction, or “multiple punishments for the same offense"Source
— United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 279 (2d Cir. 2006)
(Cited to explain the fundamental protection offered by the Double Jeopardy Clause.)
DOJ-OGR-00004720.jpg
Quote #2
"The analysis of the Korfant factors in which defendant would have the Court engage will become necessary if, and only if, jeopardy attaches on one of the indictments . . . ."Source
— United States v. Herrera, No. 02 Cr. 477 (LAK), 2002 WL 31133029, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002)
(Quoted to support the argument that jeopardy never attached for the offenses in the proposed USAO-SDFL indictment because it was never filed.)
DOJ-OGR-00004720.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,219 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 13 of 26
Michigan, 568 U.S. 313, 319 (2013) (distinguishing between a “merits-related ruling” during trial that “concludes proceedings absolutely” under the Double Jeopardy Clause and “termination of the proceedings . . . on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offense” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In order for jeopardy to attach to counts dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, the dismissal must involve some adjudication of facts that go to the merits. For instance, “a plea agreement in which the court was directly involved in a defendant’s decision to plead guilty to two counts, in exchange for an agreement to drop with prejudice a third count, all on the basis of findings of certain facts which support that agreement, might perhaps constitute a pretrial fact-finding that implicated jeopardy in its proper sense of risk of exposure.” Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84 (footnote omitted).
Here, the defendant was never placed in jeopardy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. She was never indicted, acquitted, convicted, or punished for the offenses in Counts Five and Six. See United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271, 279 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that “[i]n essence, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects criminal defendants against” second prosecutions after acquittal or conviction, or “multiple punishments for the same offense” (quotation marks omitted)). At no point did the defendant even risk conviction.
That analysis is unaffected by the NPA. Again, neither the defendant nor Epstein was ever indicted by a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of Florida nor found guilty of any federal offense. NPA or no NPA, jeopardy never attached for the offenses in the proposed USAO-SDFL indictment, which was of course never filed. See United States v. Herrera, No. 02 Cr. 477 (LAK), 2002 WL 31133029, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2002) (“The analysis of the Korfant factors in which defendant would have the Court engage will become necessary if, and only if, jeopardy attaches on one of the indictments . . . .”). And the NPA would not have provided protection to the
9
DOJ-OGR-00004720
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document