DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
40.7 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document/court filing
File Size:
40.7 KB
Summary
This document discusses legal principles of contract interpretation in the context of plea agreements, citing several court cases. It argues that ordinary contract principles should apply to plea agreements, with a strong emphasis on fairness to the defendant and construing ambiguity against the government, and suggests that the cases of Annabi and Maxwell should be reversed based on these principles.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Annabi | Defendant (implied) |
Subject of a legal case where interpretation of contract principles is discussed
|
| Maxwell | Defendant (implied) |
Subject of a legal case where interpretation of contract principles is discussed
|
| Williams | Party in a legal case |
Cited in United States v. Williams, 102 F.3d 923, 927 (7th Cir. 1996)
|
| Warner | Party in a legal case |
Cited in United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678, 683 (4th Cir. 2016)
|
| Van Thournout | Party in a legal case |
Cited in Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594
|
| Jordan | Party in a legal case |
Cited in United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2007)
|
| Cosby | Defendant |
Cited in Commonwealth v. Cosby, 666 Pa. 416, 481-82, 252 A.3d 1092, 1131 (Pa. 2021)
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
Party in legal proceedings, to whom attorney actions are attributed
|
|
| Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Court that made a finding in Commonwealth v. Cosby
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021
Finding by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Cosby regarding prosecutor's promise being binding.
Pennsylvania
Key Quotes (2)
""[a]s prosecutors are vested with such 'tremendous' discretion and authority, our law has long recognized the special weight that must be accorded to their assurances.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
Quote #1
""are supplemented with a concern that the bargaining process not violate the defendant's right to fundamental fairness under the Due Process Clause.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000056.tif
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,740 characters)
14
by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes,
to the Government." Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. See also
Commonwealth v. Cosby, 666 Pa. 416, 481-82, 252
A.3d 1092, 1131 (Pa. 2021) (finding by the Pennsylva-
nia Supreme Court that a promise made by a prior
prosecutor was binding on a subsequent one because
"[a]s prosecutors are vested with such 'tremendous'
discretion and authority, our law has long recognized
the special weight that must be accorded to their
assurances.").
B. Ordinary principles of contract interpre-
tation compel Annabi and Maxwell to be
reversed.
A plea agreement is a contract and is to be inter-
preted according to ordinary contract principles. See,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 102 F.3d 923, 927
(7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678,
683 (4th Cir. 2016); Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594.
In fact, in interpreting plea agreements, these ordi-
nary contract principles are to be employed even more
strongly in favor of the defendant because they "are
supplemented with a concern that the bargaining
process not violate the defendant's right to fundamen-
tal fairness under the Due Process Clause." Williams,
102 F.3d at 927 (internal quotation omitted). See also
United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191, 195-96 (4th Cir.
2007); Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594. Pursuant
to these standards of interpretation, words within a
contract are to be afforded their ordinary meaning.
And to the extent that there is an ambiguity, such an
ambiguity is to be construed against the government.¹
1 In addition, as discussed below as to the particular plea
agreement at issue in this case, the contract interpretation
principle known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius compels a
DOJ-OGR-00000056
by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes,
to the Government." Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. See also
Commonwealth v. Cosby, 666 Pa. 416, 481-82, 252
A.3d 1092, 1131 (Pa. 2021) (finding by the Pennsylva-
nia Supreme Court that a promise made by a prior
prosecutor was binding on a subsequent one because
"[a]s prosecutors are vested with such 'tremendous'
discretion and authority, our law has long recognized
the special weight that must be accorded to their
assurances.").
B. Ordinary principles of contract interpre-
tation compel Annabi and Maxwell to be
reversed.
A plea agreement is a contract and is to be inter-
preted according to ordinary contract principles. See,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 102 F.3d 923, 927
(7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678,
683 (4th Cir. 2016); Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594.
In fact, in interpreting plea agreements, these ordi-
nary contract principles are to be employed even more
strongly in favor of the defendant because they "are
supplemented with a concern that the bargaining
process not violate the defendant's right to fundamen-
tal fairness under the Due Process Clause." Williams,
102 F.3d at 927 (internal quotation omitted). See also
United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191, 195-96 (4th Cir.
2007); Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594. Pursuant
to these standards of interpretation, words within a
contract are to be afforded their ordinary meaning.
And to the extent that there is an ambiguity, such an
ambiguity is to be construed against the government.¹
1 In addition, as discussed below as to the particular plea
agreement at issue in this case, the contract interpretation
principle known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius compels a
DOJ-OGR-00000056
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document