DOJ-OGR-00021755.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page13 of 35

U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation, and any offenses that arose from the related grand jury investigation.”); cf. Florida West, 853 F.Supp.2d at 1228-29.

B. The Co-Conspirators Provision of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Binds the USAO-SDNY and Annabi is not to the Contrary.

Embedded within Annabi’s canon of construction that prosecutors in one district cannot bind prosecutors in another district, is a requirement that there must be a complete absence of language expressing a broader intention. Thus, if "it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction," Annabi’s restrictive rule does not apply. U.S. v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986).

The language expressing a broader intention can be found in the NPA, which (1) explicitly states that “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein” (A178), (2) contains a structural separation of this clause from the more restrictive language used elsewhere, and (3) utilizes the expressed language that Epstein intended a “global” agreement. Obviously, an intent to limit the immunity afforded the co-conspirators easily could have been made explicit by the incorporation of limiting language. No such language was utilized and was, in fact, removed from the co-conspirator clause.

A promise to bind other districts can be inferred from negotiations between a defendant and a prosecutor. See United States v. Alessi, 554 F2d 1139,1153-4 (2d

7

DOJ-OGR-00021755