DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
709 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (case law analysis)
File Size:
709 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024. It analyzes the legal precedent of *Annabi* (771 F.2d 671), focusing on whether a plea agreement made with the US Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) prevents prosecution by the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text highlights the Second Circuit's ruling that despite being counterintuitive, an agreement to dismiss counts by one district's prosecutor did not bind the United States from prosecuting in another district. This legal argument is likely being cited in the broader context of the Epstein case to discuss the validity and scope of Non-Prosecution Agreements across different federal districts.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendants (in Annabi case) | Defendants |
Charged with heroin conspiracy in EDNY and later SDNY; argued plea agreement barred second prosecution.
|
| Prosecutor (EDNY) | Prosecutor |
Represented the government in the initial EDNY case; testified in evidentiary hearing.
|
| Defense Attorney (EDNY) | Defense Counsel |
Represented defendants in EDNY; testified in evidentiary hearing.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| EDNY |
Eastern District of New York (Federal Court)
|
|
| SDNY |
Southern District of New York (Federal Court)
|
|
| USAO-EDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
|
|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
|
|
| Second Circuit |
United States Court of Appeals which reviewed the case.
|
|
| District Court |
Conducted the evidentiary hearing regarding the plea agreement.
|
|
| The Government |
Refers to the United States prosecution authority.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (Post-Indictment)
Evidentiary hearing regarding the scope of the plea agreement.
District Court
Key Quotes (3)
"the only agreement that exists between defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
Quote #1
"[a] plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment…might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district…."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
Quote #2
"the law has evolved to the contrary,"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021837.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,682 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page13 of 51
In Annabi, the defendants were charged under a three-count indictment in the
EDNY with conspiring to import, importing, and possessing heroin with intent to
distribute. See 771 F.2d at 671. After they pled guilty to the substantive importation
charge (Count Two), the prosecutor represented to the court that “the only agreement
that exists between defendants and the Government is that at the time of the
imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the
two open remaining counts...” Id. Accordingly, the conspiracy and possession
counts were dismissed. See id. Subsequently, the defendants were indicted in the
SDNY with conspiracy to distribute heroin. See id. Whereas the dismissed EDNY
charges had only alleged a conspiracy on or about a date in 1982, the new SDNY
charges alleged criminal conduct extending from 1982 to 1985. The defendants
argued that these new charges were barred by their plea agreement with the USAO-
EDNY. See id. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing—obtaining
testimony from both the prosecutor and the defense attorney from the EDNY
proceedings—and concluded that the agreement was not meant to bind the USAO-
SDNY. See id. The Second Circuit noted that this result was highly counterintuitive,
acknowledging that “[a] plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that
‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment…might be thought to bar the
United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district….”
Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,”
EDNY with conspiring to import, importing, and possessing heroin with intent to
distribute. See 771 F.2d at 671. After they pled guilty to the substantive importation
charge (Count Two), the prosecutor represented to the court that “the only agreement
that exists between defendants and the Government is that at the time of the
imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the
two open remaining counts...” Id. Accordingly, the conspiracy and possession
counts were dismissed. See id. Subsequently, the defendants were indicted in the
SDNY with conspiracy to distribute heroin. See id. Whereas the dismissed EDNY
charges had only alleged a conspiracy on or about a date in 1982, the new SDNY
charges alleged criminal conduct extending from 1982 to 1985. The defendants
argued that these new charges were barred by their plea agreement with the USAO-
EDNY. See id. The District Court conducted an evidentiary hearing—obtaining
testimony from both the prosecutor and the defense attorney from the EDNY
proceedings—and concluded that the agreement was not meant to bind the USAO-
SDNY. See id. The Second Circuit noted that this result was highly counterintuitive,
acknowledging that “[a] plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that
‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment…might be thought to bar the
United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district….”
Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,”
8
DOJ-OGR-00021837
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document