DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
592 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion
File Size:
592 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023, rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that her prosecution violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court argues that because Maxwell herself was not previously prosecuted or punished in the Florida investigation, and because Epstein's previous plea deal does not confer immunity to his co-conspirators, the charges against her stand. The text cites various legal precedents to support the Government's position that co-conspirators are not automatically protected by another's non-prosecution agreement.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Arguing she is immune from prosecution based on Double Jeopardy; argument is rejected by the court.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding his previous punishment and non-prosecution agreement; used by Maxwell as basis for her defense.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in case law (2d Cir.) and referred to regarding previous holdings.
|
|
| United States Government |
Prosecution; opposing Maxwell's motion.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to a previous investigation.
|
Relationships (1)
Text refers to 'separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators' and discusses Epstein's punishment in relation to Maxwell's case.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Double Jeopardy Clause bars only successive prosecution or punishment for the same offense, and Maxwell has endured neither."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
Quote #1
"Whether the Government could have charged Epstein again in this case has nothing to do with Maxwell’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
Quote #2
"No precedent stands for the proposition that an uncharged co-conspirator is put in jeopardy when another co-conspirator accepts a non-prosecution agreement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020815.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,963 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page197 of 208
A-193
A-193
no indication that Maxwell was even a subject of the Florida investigation. The Double Jeopardy
Clause bars only successive prosecution or punishment for the same offense, and Maxwell has
endured neither. Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the charges against her.
Clause bars only successive prosecution or punishment for the same offense, and Maxwell has
endured neither. Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the charges against her.
Despite facing no prior prosecution or punishment herself, Maxwell contends that she is
immune from prosecution because Epstein was already punished for the same conspiracy. The
cases she cites, however, deal with successive prosecutions of a particular defendant for the same
conspiracy, not separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v.
Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 2004). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not require all co-
conspirators be tried together for related offenses. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539
(1993); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1014 (2d Cir. 1976). Whether the Government
could have charged Epstein again in this case has nothing to do with Maxwell’s rights under the
Double Jeopardy Clause.
immune from prosecution because Epstein was already punished for the same conspiracy. The
cases she cites, however, deal with successive prosecutions of a particular defendant for the same
conspiracy, not separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v.
Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 2004). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not require all co-
conspirators be tried together for related offenses. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539
(1993); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1014 (2d Cir. 1976). Whether the Government
could have charged Epstein again in this case has nothing to do with Maxwell’s rights under the
Double Jeopardy Clause.
Maxwell finally points to one case in which the Second Circuit held that a subsequent
prosecution might not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her
husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609
F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in
Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husband’s plea agreement, not the Double
Jeopardy Clause. See Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d at 638. No precedent stands for the
proposition that an uncharged co-conspirator is put in jeopardy when another co-conspirator
accepts a non-prosecution agreement. This is the first case in which Maxwell will be put in
jeopardy for these offenses, and so this prosecution does not put her in jeopardy a second time.
prosecution might not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her
husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609
F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in
Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husband’s plea agreement, not the Double
Jeopardy Clause. See Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d at 638. No precedent stands for the
proposition that an uncharged co-conspirator is put in jeopardy when another co-conspirator
accepts a non-prosecution agreement. This is the first case in which Maxwell will be put in
jeopardy for these offenses, and so this prosecution does not put her in jeopardy a second time.
6
DOJ-OGR-00020815
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document