DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page from appellate record)
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court order rejecting Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) protects her from prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Citing the Second Circuit precedent *United States v. Annabi*, the court maintains that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district where they are entered. The court dismisses Maxwell's renewed motion and supplemental authority, affirming that the SDNY is not bound by the agreement made in another district.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the court's ruling; attempting to use Epstein's NPA as a defense against charges.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased financier/Sex offender |
Referenced regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York |
The prosecuting office; the court rules they are not bound by Epstein's NPA.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as legal authority establishing precedent on plea agreements.
|
|
| Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Referenced in Maxwell's letter of supplemental authority.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Opinion & Order issued by the Court explaining why the NPA does not bar charges.
Southern District of New York
The Court
Ghislaine Maxwell
Unknown
Filing of S2 superseding indictment.
Southern District of New York
Ghislaine Maxwell
US Attorney's Office
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction where Maxwell is being prosecuted.
|
|
|
Referenced in relation to a Supreme Court opinion cited by Maxwell.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is attempting to use Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a defense for her own charges.
Key Quotes (4)
"the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
Quote #1
"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell advances two new arguments for why the Court should depart from this reasoning"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
Quote #3
"It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020812.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,170 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page194 of 208
A-190
A-190
renewed motion for substantially the same reasons set forth in its April 16 opinion. The Court
will proceed to briefly explain why neither the new charges in the S2 superseding indictment nor
the supplemental authority Maxwell cites change the Court’s conclusion that the NPA does not
bar the charges against her.
will proceed to briefly explain why neither the new charges in the S2 superseding indictment nor
the supplemental authority Maxwell cites change the Court’s conclusion that the NPA does not
bar the charges against her.
As the Court explained in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Second Circuit held in
United States v. Annabi that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States
Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
The Second Circuit’s opinion in Annabi is clear, and that court has followed it steadfastly since.
See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v.
Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v.
Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916,
923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language nearly identical to that in
Epstein’s NPA is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of single-district plea
agreements. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120. Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus
concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it
would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indictment.
United States v. Annabi that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States
Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
The Second Circuit’s opinion in Annabi is clear, and that court has followed it steadfastly since.
See, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v.
Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v.
Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916,
923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language nearly identical to that in
Epstein’s NPA is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of single-district plea
agreements. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120. Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus
concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it
would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indictment.
Maxwell advances two new arguments for why the Court should depart from this
reasoning—the first in her renewed motion and the second in a letter of supplemental authority.
See Dkt. Nos. 293, 310. In her renewed motion, she contends that Annabi contains an exception
for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are “identical to the dismissed charges.” And in
the letter of supplemental authority, she contends that the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme
reasoning—the first in her renewed motion and the second in a letter of supplemental authority.
See Dkt. Nos. 293, 310. In her renewed motion, she contends that Annabi contains an exception
for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are “identical to the dismissed charges.” And in
the letter of supplemental authority, she contends that the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme
3
DOJ-OGR-00020812
DOJ-OGR-00020812
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document