DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
758 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion exhibit
File Size:
758 KB
Summary
This document is page 55 of 80 from a legal filing (Document 310-1) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 2, 2021. The text is an excerpt from a legal opinion citing the precedent of *Commonwealth v. Zuber*, discussing the legal obligation of prosecutors to honor promises made during plea bargaining. This is likely included in a defense motion arguing for the enforcement of a non-prosecution agreement (likely the Epstein NPA) based on the principle of 'benefit of the bargain.'
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Zuber | Defendant (in cited case) |
Subject of the legal precedent regarding plea bargain enforcement.
|
| Assistant District Attorney | Prosecutor (in cited case) |
Made a specific promise in open court to Zuber.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth |
Refers to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (prosecution in the cited case).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| This Court |
The appellate court reviewing Zuber's case.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-07-02
Filing of Document 310-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
Southern District of New York (implied by case number)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the cited legal precedent.
|
Relationships (1)
Zuber argued he was induced by a specific promise made by the Commonwealth.
Key Quotes (3)
"[T]here is an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecutor to honor any and all promises made in exchange for a defendant’s plea."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
Quote #1
"Therefore, in Pennsylvania, it is well settled that where a plea bargain has been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
Quote #2
"Zuber had 'reasonably relied upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open court by the assistant district attorney,' id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the bargain."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004867.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,213 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 55 of 80
sentenced Zuber accordingly. However, because the law requires that “back time”
sentences and new sentences be served consecutively, Zuber was legally obligated to
begin serving his sentences one after the other, instead of simultaneously. Id.
sentences and new sentences be served consecutively, Zuber was legally obligated to
begin serving his sentences one after the other, instead of simultaneously. Id.
Zuber sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the plea as stated in open court
had to be enforced, statutory law notwithstanding. On appeal to this Court, Zuber argued
that he was “induced by the specific promise made by the Commonwealth,” which
ultimately turned out to be a “false and empty one.” Id. We noted that plea bargaining is
looked upon favorably and that “the integrity of our judicial process demands that certain
safeguards be stringently adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a defendant
and accepted by the trial court will always be one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a
full understanding of the consequences to follow.” Id.
had to be enforced, statutory law notwithstanding. On appeal to this Court, Zuber argued
that he was “induced by the specific promise made by the Commonwealth,” which
ultimately turned out to be a “false and empty one.” Id. We noted that plea bargaining is
looked upon favorably and that “the integrity of our judicial process demands that certain
safeguards be stringently adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a defendant
and accepted by the trial court will always be one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a
full understanding of the consequences to follow.” Id.
[T]here is an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecutor to honor any and
all promises made in exchange for a defendant’s plea. Our courts have
demanded strict compliance with that duty in order to avoid any possible
perversion of the plea bargaining system, evidencing the concern that a
defendant might be coerced into a bargain or fraudulently induced to give
up the very valued constitutional guarantees attendant the right to trial by
jury.
all promises made in exchange for a defendant’s plea. Our courts have
demanded strict compliance with that duty in order to avoid any possible
perversion of the plea bargaining system, evidencing the concern that a
defendant might be coerced into a bargain or fraudulently induced to give
up the very valued constitutional guarantees attendant the right to trial by
jury.
Therefore, in Pennsylvania, it is well settled that where a plea bargain has
been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is
entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain.
been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is
entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain.
Id. at 444 (cleaned up).
We then turned to the remedy to which Zuber was entitled, which was problematic
because enforcement of the plea necessarily meant compelling an outcome that was
prohibited by statute. Nonetheless, because, inter alia, Zuber had “reasonably relied
upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open
court by the assistant district attorney,” id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the
bargain. Thus, we modified Zuber’s sentence by lowering the minimum range to reflect
because enforcement of the plea necessarily meant compelling an outcome that was
prohibited by statute. Nonetheless, because, inter alia, Zuber had “reasonably relied
upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open
court by the assistant district attorney,” id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the
bargain. Thus, we modified Zuber’s sentence by lowering the minimum range to reflect
[J-100-2020] - 54
DOJ-OGR-00004867
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document