DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
800 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate filing
File Size:
800 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues points regarding the scope of plea agreements and Double Jeopardy. It analyzes the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' and the 'Annabi' precedent to determine if a plea agreement binding 'the Government' applies to other United States Attorney Offices (USAOs). The text argues that for charges to be distinct enough to bypass the rule, they must cover a new time period, noting that in the Annabi case, the conspiracy period was two years longer.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | Litigants |
Parties contending that charges result from the same conspiratorial agreement.
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Refers to the defendant in a cited case (United States v. Annabi) used to argue about plea agreement scope.
|
| Abbamonte | Legal Precedent Subject |
Refers to the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' regarding plea agreement construction.
|
| Alessi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Refers to the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' regarding plea agreement construction.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District |
Refers to the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District (likely SDNY), bringing new charges.
|
|
| Eastern District |
Refers to the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District (likely EDNY), where charges were dismissed.
|
|
| United States Attorney |
Federal prosecutor's office.
|
|
| USAOs |
United States Attorney Offices.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in legal argument.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in legal argument.
|
Relationships (1)
Text discusses whether charges in one district are distinct from those dismissed in the other.
Key Quotes (3)
"‘(a) plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered....’"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
Quote #1
"Annabi’s “sufficiently distinct” standard qualifies what the Court referred to as the “Abbamonte-Alessi rule,” i.e., the canon of construction for determining whether a plea agreement’s ambiguous reference to “the Government” or “the United States” includes other USAOs."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
Quote #2
"Annabi’s rule of construction does not apply unless the new charges also cover a new time period"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,955 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page46 of 113
Even if, as appellants contend, the Southern District charges result
from the same conspiratorial agreement that underlay the charges
dismissed in the Eastern District, the allegation [in the Southern
District] that the conspiracy extended for an additional two years
suffices to show that the new charges are not identical to the
dismissed charges. Therefore, regardless of what degree of preclusive
effect [under the Double Jeopardy Clause] the dismissal of the
Eastern District charges would have if the pending charges had been
brought by the United States Attorney for [the Eastern] District, the
[Southern District] charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant
application of the Abbamonte-Alessi rule concerning construction of
plea agreements [viz., that ‘(a) plea agreement binds only the office of
the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered....’].”
Id. (brackets and emphases added).
from the same conspiratorial agreement that underlay the charges
dismissed in the Eastern District, the allegation [in the Southern
District] that the conspiracy extended for an additional two years
suffices to show that the new charges are not identical to the
dismissed charges. Therefore, regardless of what degree of preclusive
effect [under the Double Jeopardy Clause] the dismissal of the
Eastern District charges would have if the pending charges had been
brought by the United States Attorney for [the Eastern] District, the
[Southern District] charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant
application of the Abbamonte-Alessi rule concerning construction of
plea agreements [viz., that ‘(a) plea agreement binds only the office of
the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered....’].”
Id. (brackets and emphases added).
The court misread this portion of Annabi as pertaining only to “a claim
based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, not a claim based on the plea agreement[.]”.
A191. A careful reading of the above shows that Annabi’s “sufficiently distinct”
standard qualifies what the Court referred to as the “Abbamonte-Alessi rule,” i.e.,
the canon of construction for determining whether a plea agreement’s ambiguous
reference to “the Government” or “the United States” includes other USAOs.
Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. And under this test, it was dispositive that the later-
brought SDNY charges in Annabi alleged a conspiracy period two years longer
than the period alleged and resolved in the Eastern District. See id.
based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, not a claim based on the plea agreement[.]”.
A191. A careful reading of the above shows that Annabi’s “sufficiently distinct”
standard qualifies what the Court referred to as the “Abbamonte-Alessi rule,” i.e.,
the canon of construction for determining whether a plea agreement’s ambiguous
reference to “the Government” or “the United States” includes other USAOs.
Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. And under this test, it was dispositive that the later-
brought SDNY charges in Annabi alleged a conspiracy period two years longer
than the period alleged and resolved in the Eastern District. See id.
What this means is that, when new charges stem from “the same” conduct
that “underlay” charges resolved by prior plea, Annabi’s rule of construction does
not apply unless the new charges also cover a new time period; that is what makes
that “underlay” charges resolved by prior plea, Annabi’s rule of construction does
not apply unless the new charges also cover a new time period; that is what makes
31
DOJ-OGR-00021093
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document