DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
809 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (government's opposition to motion)
File Size:
809 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the S2 Indictment; prosecution argues Double Jeopardy does not apply to her because she has not previously...
|
| Abbamonte | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced in case law citation regarding double jeopardy protections.
|
| Alessi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced in case law citation regarding double jeopardy protections.
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced case (Annabi, 771 F.2d) used to argue interpretation of plea agreements and double jeopardy.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
The court whose opinion is being analyzed and cited as precedent.
|
|
| Eastern District |
Referenced in the block quote regarding dismissed charges in a prior case.
|
|
| Southern District |
Referenced in the block quote regarding charges resulting from a conspiratorial agreement.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case law.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in case law.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment.
Key Quotes (2)
"As discussed in greater detail below, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a prosecution in this case because Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
Quote #1
"Ignoring the Double Jeopardy language in Annabi, the defendant argues that the phrase 'identical to the dismissed charges' somehow creates a different rule of interpretation for plea agreements..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,419 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 26
this phrase is entirely misplaced. That phrase appears in a specific portion of the Second Circuit’s opinion, in which the panel rejected the defendants’ attempt to distinguish Abbamonte and Alessi by saying that they were only seeking the same protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause, while Abbamonte and Alessi involved protections greater than the Double Jeopardy Clause. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. In rejecting that argument, the Court explained:
The argument fails for two reasons. First, since appellants were never in jeopardy on the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the protection they now seek under the plea agreement is necessarily broader than that accorded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Second, to the extent that the appellants rely on a claim that the Clause, if applicable, would protect them from prosecution on charges identical to those dismissed, the short answer is that the pending charges, covering conduct extending more than two years beyond the date of the period covered by the dismissed charges, are not the same as the charges that were dismissed. Even if, as appellants contend, the Southern District charges result from the same conspiratorial agreement that underlay the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the allegation that the conspiracy extended for an additional two years suffices to show that the new charges are not identical to the dismissed charges.
Id. As the foregoing makes clear, the Second Circuit did not in any way qualify the plain-statement rule set forth in its opinion. Rather, the Second Circuit addressed the defendant’s efforts to distinguish precedent based on the Double Jeopardy Clause and explained why the Clause did not preclude a prosecution in that case. In other words, this language in Annabi was cabined to an analysis under the Double Jeopardy Clause. As discussed in greater detail below, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a prosecution in this case because Maxwell has not previously been prosecuted for the offenses in the S2 Indictment.
Ignoring the Double Jeopardy language in Annabi, the defendant argues that the phrase “identical to the dismissed charges” somehow creates a different rule of interpretation for plea agreements, under which the Court must first analyze the similarity between the NPA and the S2
4
DOJ-OGR-00004715
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document