DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
594 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (doj office of government relations release)
File Size:
594 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (stamped 2024 but discussing historical legal arguments) analyzes the scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the NPA and the actions of the USAO-SDFL (under R. Alexander Acosta) were limited to the Southern District of Florida and were not intended to bind other federal districts, citing the United States Attorney's Manual. A footnote quotes the specific language of the NPA where federal prosecution is deferred in favor of state prosecution.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Mentioned regarding the dismissal of charges and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
|
| R. Alexander Acosta | United States Attorney |
Cited in footnote 13 as the authority for the Southern District of Florida deferring prosecution.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; actions discussed regarding the scope of the NPA.
|
|
| Federal Grand Jury |
Investigated offenses mentioned in the text.
|
|
| State of Florida |
Entity to whom prosecution was deferred in favor of.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by 'United States Attorney's Manual' and footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to 2008 (implied)
Negotiation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
Southern District of Florida
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction where the NPA was negotiated and prosecution was deferred.
|
Relationships (1)
Footnote 13 mentions Acosta's authority in deferring prosecution of Epstein.
Key Quotes (4)
"offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
Quote #1
"The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text, fails to show that the agreement was intended to bind other districts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
Quote #2
"No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
Quote #3
"THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta... prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,537 characters)
Case 22-14485, Document 109-1, 02/17/2024, 3385867, Page 11 of 26
offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.13
The only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement’s scope is limiting language.
The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text, fails to show that the agreement was intended to bind other districts. Under our Court’s precedent, the negotiation history of an NPA can support an inference that an NPA “affirmatively” binds other districts.14 Yet, the actions of USAO-SDFL do not indicate that the NPA was intended to bind other districts.
The United States Attorney’s Manual that was operable during the negotiations of the NPA required that:
No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of
__________________
13 A-175 (emphasis added). The agreement’s scope is also limited in an additional section:
13 A-175 (emphasis added). The agreement’s scope is also limited in an additional section:
THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
Id. (emphasis added).
14 See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986).
11
DOJ-OGR-00021858
DOJ-OGR-00021858
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document