DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
754 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
754 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Epstein does not prevent the prosecution of Maxwell by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The document asserts that the NPA's scope was explicitly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts. It cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Annabi, to support the conclusion that Maxwell's prosecution can proceed.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as a party in a legal case, contending that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) should bar her prosecution by...
|
|
| Annabi |
A party in the legal case United States v. Annabi, which is cited as a precedent.
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida.
|
|
| Harvey |
A party in the legal case United States v. Harvey, cited in a footnote.
|
|
| Gebbie |
A party in the legal case United States v. Gebbie, cited in a footnote.
|
|
| Prisco |
A party in the legal case United States v. Prisco, cited in a footnote.
|
|
| Gonzalez |
A party in the legal case United States v. Gonzalez, cited in a footnote.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
Mentioned as the prosecuting body in Maxwell's case (United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New...
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | government agency |
Mentioned as a party to a joint investigation covered by Epstein's NPA.
|
| United States Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as a party to a joint investigation covered by Epstein's NPA.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A joint investigation that was the subject of Epstein's NPA.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location to which Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was expressly limited.
|
|
|
Location where a plea agreement was entered in the cited case of United States v. Prisco.
|
|
|
Location where a plea agreement was entered in the cited case of United States v. Gonzalez.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any"Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
(A direct quote from the NPA related to Epstein, outlining the scope of non-prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
Quote #1
"sufficiently distinct"Source
— Legal precedent (Annabi case)
(A legal standard discussed in the footnote regarding whether subsequent charges are covered by an earlier agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00021804.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,201 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page10 of 26
contemplates a broader restriction.”11 And while Maxwell contends that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any
11 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
12 See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only where subsequent charges are “sufficiently distinct” from charges covered by an earlier agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause applied, the subsequent charges were “sufficiently distinct” and therefore fell outside the Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and subsequent charges.
10
DOJ-OGR-00021804
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document