DOJ-OGR-00021839.jpg
692 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
692 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 15 of a filing dated November 1, 2024, argues that the legal precedent in 'Annabi' is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings. It cites the cases of 'Santobello' (1971) and 'Giglio' (1972) to support the principle that a prosecutor's office functions as a single entity for the government, and therefore, promises made by one prosecutor (such as in plea or immunity agreements) are binding on others, even across different districts.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Papa |
Mentioned as someone who 'does not explain or attempt to rationalize the rule that has evolved'.
|
|
| Annabi |
Subject of a legal case ('Annabi stands in tension...').
|
|
| Santobello |
Subject of a seminal Supreme Court case on plea bargaining.
|
|
| Giglio |
Subject of the Supreme Court case 'Giglio v. United States'.
|
|
| Brady |
Referenced in the context of an AUSA's duty under the Brady rule to disclose information.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as the authority on plea and immunity agreements in cases like Santobello and Giglio v. United States.
|
| Government | government agency |
Described as the entity for which the prosecutor's office is a spokesman, and to which promises made by an attorney a...
|
Timeline (2 events)
1971
The Supreme Court ruled in the Santobello case, holding that one prosecutor's promise in a plea agreement binds other prosecutors.
1972
The Supreme Court ruled in Giglio v. United States, holding that an AUSA had a duty to disclose a promise of immunity made by another AUSA.
Relationships (1)
federal prosecutor in one district
→
professional
→
his or her counterpart in another
The document discusses the legal question of whether a federal prosecutor in one district has an obligation to honor promises made by a prosecutor in another district.
Key Quotes (2)
"[t]he staff lawyers in a prosecutor’s office have the burden of ‘letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing’ or has done."Source
— Santobello (Supreme Court case)
(Explanation from the Santobello case regarding the collective responsibility of a prosecutor's office.)
DOJ-OGR-00021839.jpg
Quote #1
"The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government"Source
— Giglio v. United States (Supreme Court case)
(Quoted from the ruling in Giglio v. United States to establish that a prosecutor's office acts as a single entity for the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00021839.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,632 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page15 of 51
affirmative appearance of doing so. Papa does not explain or attempt
to rationalize the rule that has evolved.
to rationalize the rule that has evolved.
294 F.3d at 547-48 (brackets and italics in original; bold added).
Annabi stands in tension with what the United States Supreme Court has
written about plea and immunity agreements. In Santobello, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)—
the seminal case on plea bargaining—the Supreme Court held that one prosecutor’s
promise in a plea agreement would bind other prosecutors, even those who might
have been unaware of the promise. As Santobello explained, “[t]he staff lawyers in
a prosecutor’s office have the burden of ‘letting the left hand know what the right
hand is doing’ or has done.” 404 U.S. at 262. And in Giglio v. United States, the
Supreme Court held that an AUSA had a duty under Brady to disclose a promise of
immunity that another AUSA had made to a testifying witness, even though the first
AUSA had been falsely assured that no such promise was made. See 405 U.S. 150,
154 (1972) (“The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for
the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these
purposes, to the Government”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 272).
These premises are inconsistent with the notion that a federal prosecutor in one
district has no obligation to honor promises made by his or her counterpart in
another.
written about plea and immunity agreements. In Santobello, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)—
the seminal case on plea bargaining—the Supreme Court held that one prosecutor’s
promise in a plea agreement would bind other prosecutors, even those who might
have been unaware of the promise. As Santobello explained, “[t]he staff lawyers in
a prosecutor’s office have the burden of ‘letting the left hand know what the right
hand is doing’ or has done.” 404 U.S. at 262. And in Giglio v. United States, the
Supreme Court held that an AUSA had a duty under Brady to disclose a promise of
immunity that another AUSA had made to a testifying witness, even though the first
AUSA had been falsely assured that no such promise was made. See 405 U.S. 150,
154 (1972) (“The prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for
the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these
purposes, to the Government”) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 272).
These premises are inconsistent with the notion that a federal prosecutor in one
district has no obligation to honor promises made by his or her counterpart in
another.
Appellant is not aware of any published authority from another circuit that
follows Annabi in holding that an ambiguous promise made in a plea agreement by
follows Annabi in holding that an ambiguous promise made in a plea agreement by
10
DOJ-OGR-00021839
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document