DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
37.3 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (petition/brief)
File Size:
37.3 KB
Summary
This document, likely a legal petition or brief, discusses the reasons for granting a petition filed by 'Maxwell' after an en banc rehearing was denied. It focuses on a circuit split regarding the binding nature of plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney's office in one district on other U.S. Attorney's offices. The document cites Santobello v. New York as a precedent suggesting that such promises should be binding across different prosecutors.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Litigant/Petitioner |
Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was denied.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
Refers to the federal government as a party in legal proceedings and the entity making promises in plea agreements.
|
|
| United States Attorney's office |
Office representing the United States in legal matters, specifically in different districts.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
A specific legal circuit where the United States might prosecute a defendant anew.
|
|
| Seventh Circuit |
A specific legal circuit where the United States might prosecute a defendant anew.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Document identifier, likely Department of Justice - Office of General Counsel Records
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Where the interpretation of 'United States' in a plea agreement differs.
|
|
|
Where the interpretation of 'United States' in a plea agreement differs from New Jersey.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving an acknowledged circuit split over the proper application of this Court's precedent regarding an important issue of federal criminal law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
Quote #1
"The circuits are split as to whether a promise on behalf of the "United States" or the "Government" by a United States Attorney's office in one district is binding upon United States Attorney's offices in other districts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
Quote #2
"In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), this Court held that a prosecutor's promise in a plea agreement binds other prosecutors, even those who might have been unaware of the promise."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
Quote #3
""Th[e] circumstances will vary, but a constant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000049.tif
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,575 characters)
7
Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was
denied. (App.92).
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving an
acknowledged circuit split over the proper application
of this Court's precedent regarding an important issue
of federal criminal law. Despite the fact that the term
"United States" has a widely accepted meaning in
perhaps every other context, when this term is used in
a plea agreement, it means something different in
New Jersey than it does across the river in New York
City. A criminal defendant who, after receiving a
promise that he will not be prosecuted again by the
United States, pleads guilty to resolve all criminal
liability, is not in fact resolving all criminal liability
because the United States remains free to prosecute
him anew so long as it does so in the Second or Seventh
Circuits.
This Court should resolve this conflict, ensuring that
plea agreements are enforced consistently throughout
the United States so that when the United States
makes a promise in a plea agreement, it is held to that
promise.
I. The circuits are split as to whether a promise
on behalf of the "United States" or the
"Government" by a United States Attorney's
office in one district is binding upon United
States Attorney's offices in other districts.
In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), this
Court held that a prosecutor's promise in a plea
agreement binds other prosecutors, even those who
might have been unaware of the promise. 404 U.S.
at 262. "Th[e] circumstances will vary, but a constant
DOJ-OGR-00000049
Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was
denied. (App.92).
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving an
acknowledged circuit split over the proper application
of this Court's precedent regarding an important issue
of federal criminal law. Despite the fact that the term
"United States" has a widely accepted meaning in
perhaps every other context, when this term is used in
a plea agreement, it means something different in
New Jersey than it does across the river in New York
City. A criminal defendant who, after receiving a
promise that he will not be prosecuted again by the
United States, pleads guilty to resolve all criminal
liability, is not in fact resolving all criminal liability
because the United States remains free to prosecute
him anew so long as it does so in the Second or Seventh
Circuits.
This Court should resolve this conflict, ensuring that
plea agreements are enforced consistently throughout
the United States so that when the United States
makes a promise in a plea agreement, it is held to that
promise.
I. The circuits are split as to whether a promise
on behalf of the "United States" or the
"Government" by a United States Attorney's
office in one district is binding upon United
States Attorney's offices in other districts.
In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), this
Court held that a prosecutor's promise in a plea
agreement binds other prosecutors, even those who
might have been unaware of the promise. 404 U.S.
at 262. "Th[e] circumstances will vary, but a constant
DOJ-OGR-00000049
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document