DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
703 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
703 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Prisco | Subject of a legal case citation |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010)'.
|
| Annabi | Subject of a legal case citation |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985)'.
|
| Salameh | Subject of a legal case citation |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998)'.
|
| Laskow | Subject of a legal case citation |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)'.
|
| Russo | Subject of a legal case citation |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986)'.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the recipient of a promise from the USAO-SDFL that the NPA would bind other districts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Referenced as the body that should deny the defendant's request.
|
| Second Circuit | Judicial body |
Cited multiple times for its legal precedents regarding plea agreements.
|
| U.S. Attorney’s office | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of plea agreements being specific to one office.
|
| USAO-SDFL | Government agency |
Identified as the office that allegedly promised Epstein that the NPA would bind other districts. (USAO-SDFL stands f...
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The district where the NPA is argued not to be binding.
|
|
|
The Eastern District of New York, mentioned in a case citation (United States v. Laskow).
|
Key Quotes (4)
"a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney’s office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another."Source
— Second Circuit (citing United States v. Prisco)
(Used to establish the legal principle that plea agreements are generally limited to the district in which they are made.)
DOJ-OGR-00002965.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
— Second Circuit (citing United States v. Annabi)
(A quote from a per curiam opinion reinforcing the limited scope of plea agreements.)
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
Quote #2
"presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated."Source
— Second Circuit (citing United States v. Salameh)
(Describing the legal presumption that plea agreements have a narrow scope.)
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
Quote #3
"negotiations between defendant and prosecutor"Source
— Second Circuit (citing United States v. Russo)
(Mentioned as a source of evidence a defendant must establish to prove a plea agreement binds other districts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002965.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,073 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 31 of 239
offer any evidence to support her claim that the NPA applies to this District, to the defendant, or to the crimes in the Indictment, the Court should deny the defendant’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York
As an initial matter, the NPA is not enforceable in this District. To the contrary, it is black-letter law in this Circuit that a plea agreement in one district does not apply elsewhere, in the absence of express indications not present here. Indeed, the Second Circuit has considered and rejected the exact arguments the defendant advances in her motion. The defendant’s motion is without any basis in the law and should be denied.
It is well settled in the Second Circuit that “a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney’s office does not, unless otherwise stated, bind another.” United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“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.”)); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998). This Circuit “presumes a narrow reading of the boundaries of a plea agreement unless a defendant can affirmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated.” United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff’d, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the “negotiations between defendant and prosecutor” indicate a promise to bind other districts. United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant has failed to establish that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that the NPA would bind other districts.
4
DOJ-OGR-00002965
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document