DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
585 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
585 KB
Summary
This document is page 15 (labeled 20 of 51 in the header) of a legal appellate brief filed on November 1, 2024. It argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) covering the 2001-2007 period should have prevented the USAO-SDNY from charging the Appellant (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell) for conduct between 2001-2004. The text cites legal precedents (*Annabi*, *Alessi*, *Papa*) regarding whether plea agreements bind other US Attorney Offices and argues the Appellant was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the charges and the NPA argument (Contextually Ghislaine Maxwell in Case 22-1426, though name is not expli...
|
| Defense counsel | Legal Representative |
Understood the plea agreement to provide 'genuine finality'
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; charged the Appellant
|
|
| USAOs |
United States Attorneys' Offices (general reference to other districts)
|
|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; referenced regarding a report on negotiation history
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York; location where investigation was active
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Here, the USAO-SDNY charged Appellant under Count Six with conduct from 2001 through 2004 that falls entirely within the 2001-2007 offense period contemplated by the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
Quote #1
"Appellant produced ample evidence that the NPA was intended to bind other USAOs."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
Quote #2
"Defense counsel understood the plea agreement to provide 'genuine finality.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
Quote #3
"Here, appellant was denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021844.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,339 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page20 of 51
Id. Here, the USAO-SDNY charged Appellant under Count Six with conduct from
2001 through 2004 that falls entirely within the 2001-2007 offense period
contemplated by the NPA.
2001 through 2004 that falls entirely within the 2001-2007 offense period
contemplated by the NPA.
Third, Annabi should apply only if there are no “affirmative” indications
whatsoever that the plea agreement was intended to bind other USAOs. See Annabi,
771 F.2d at 671; Alessi, 544 F.2d at 1154; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823-25. That is not the
case here. Appellant produced ample evidence that the NPA was intended to bind
other USAOs. See Appellant’s Principal Brief at 33-38. The investigation itself
suggests it was meant to bind the SDNY, in particular, because the investigation was
active in the SDNY at the time the NPA was negotiated. SA72, 84, 86, 127. See Doc 293
at 16. Defense counsel understood the plea agreement to provide “genuine finality.”
SA118. This reasonable understanding, supported by the NPA itself and the limited
negotiation history contained in the one-sided OPR was sufficient to preclude
application of Annabi.
whatsoever that the plea agreement was intended to bind other USAOs. See Annabi,
771 F.2d at 671; Alessi, 544 F.2d at 1154; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823-25. That is not the
case here. Appellant produced ample evidence that the NPA was intended to bind
other USAOs. See Appellant’s Principal Brief at 33-38. The investigation itself
suggests it was meant to bind the SDNY, in particular, because the investigation was
active in the SDNY at the time the NPA was negotiated. SA72, 84, 86, 127. See Doc 293
at 16. Defense counsel understood the plea agreement to provide “genuine finality.”
SA118. This reasonable understanding, supported by the NPA itself and the limited
negotiation history contained in the one-sided OPR was sufficient to preclude
application of Annabi.
Fourth, at most, Annabi should apply, if at all, only after the court permits
discovery and conducts an evidentiary hearing. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Papa,
533 F.2d at 823. Here, appellant was denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
discovery and conducts an evidentiary hearing. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Papa,
533 F.2d at 823. Here, appellant was denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
15
DOJ-OGR-00021844
DOJ-OGR-00021844
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document