DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
628 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
628 KB
Summary
This page of a legal document argues against a critique by Maxwell of the 'Annabi' rule. The author contends the rule is sound, prevents defendants from receiving unintended immunity, and is supported by the Justice Manual's policy on multi-district agreements. The document concludes that the court is bound by this rule as it is an established precedent that has not been overturned.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | co-conspirator |
Mentioned as devoting much of her brief to criticizing the Annabi rule and being a co-conspirator.
|
| Annabi |
Mentioned in the context of a legal case and the rule derived from it, which Maxwell is criticizing.
|
|
| Thompson |
Party in the cited case Thompson v. United States.
|
|
| Rourke |
Party in the cited case United States v. Rourke.
|
|
| Wilkerson |
Party in the cited case United States v. Wilkerson.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Approval from each affected office is required before entering into a non-prosecution agreement that binds another di...
|
| United States Attorney(s) | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote from the Justice Manual as needing to approve multi-district agreements.
|
| Assistant Attorney General | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote from the Justice Manual as potentially needing to approve multi-district agreements.
|
| Seventh Circuit | government agency |
A court where the same rule from Annabi has long been applied, as shown in cited cases.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as one of the bodies that can overrule the binding precedent of a prior panel.
|
Relationships (1)
The document refers to Maxwell as a 'co-conspirator'.
Key Quotes (2)
"No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division with-out the approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General."Source
— Justice Manual § 9-27.641
(Quoted to support the argument that non-prosecution agreements binding other districts require specific approval.)
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
Quote #1
"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court"Source
— Court in United States v. Wilkerson
(Quoted to establish that the Annabi rule is a binding precedent that the current court must follow.)
DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,593 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page39 of 93
26
approval of each affected U.S. Attorney’s Office before entering into any non-prosecution agreement that purports to bind another district. See Justice Manual § 9-27.641 (“No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division with-out the approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.”).
Finally, Maxwell devotes much of her brief to criti-cizing Annabi. (E.g., Br.18-23). But this Court’s rule is sound, as it ensures that a criminal defendant (or even, as here, a co-conspirator) will not receive the windfall of immunity that was never intended by the parties to the original agreement, while leaving par-ties free to enter into legitimate multi-district resolu-tions if they wish. Nor has Maxwell’s parade of horri-bles come to pass in the decades since Annabi was de-cided. Furthermore, the same rule has long been ap-plied in the Seventh Circuit. See Thompson v. United States, 431 F. App’x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rourke, 74 F.3d 802, 807 n.5 (7th Cir. 1996). In any event, this Court need not engage in a point-by-point analysis of the merits of Annabi, because it re-mains binding precedent. See United States v. Wilker-son, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (Court is “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court”).
DOJ-OGR-00021686
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document