DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
695 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
695 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated November 1, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It details her argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) should have barred her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The text also references a 2019 DOJ OPR investigation into the original handling of the Epstein case by SDFL prosecutors.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Beneficiary of the NPA; found guilty by jury; arguing on appeal that NPA barred prosecution.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Co-conspirator/Original Defendant |
Subject of 2007-2008 federal investigation; signed NPA providing compensation and pleading guilty.
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent |
Case name cited by the District Court as basis for decision regarding NPA immunity.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice | ||
| Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) |
Investigated SDFL prosecutors in 2019 regarding the Epstein NPA.
|
|
| SDNY |
Southern District of New York; where Maxwell was prosecuted.
|
|
| SDFL |
Southern District of Florida; where Epstein's 2007-2008 investigation was resolved.
|
|
| District Court |
Lower court that made the initial decision based on Annabi.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007-2008
Federal investigation of Epstein resolved by Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
SDFL
Jeffrey Epstein
SDFL Prosecutors
2019
DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility investigated SDFL prosecutors regarding the Epstein NPA.
Washington D.C. / Florida
DOJ OPR
SDFL Prosecutors
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of Maxwell's prosecution.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of Epstein's original plea deal.
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell was a beneficiary of the NPA signed by Epstein.
Key Quotes (3)
"found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
Quote #1
"In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
Quote #2
"the Government has not searched [the SDFL prosecutor’s] inbox for communications relating to the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,678 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page10 of 51
while Maxwell was a beneficiary of the NPA and had standing to enforce its terms,
the NPA did not grant immunity to Maxwell in the SDNY. The District Court based
its decision on Annabi. The case proceeded to trial and the jury found Maxwell
guilty on, inter alia, Count Six.
the NPA did not grant immunity to Maxwell in the SDNY. The District Court based
its decision on Annabi. The case proceeded to trial and the jury found Maxwell
guilty on, inter alia, Count Six.
In 2019 the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
investigated whether and to what extent prosecutors in the SDFL improperly
resolved the federal investigation of Epstein in 2007-2008 by the very NPA at issue
here. Their investigation overlapped the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell in
the SDNY and did not involve interviewing any defense counsel. The OPR did not
contain a finding as to whether the co-conspirator clause of the NPA bound other
districts, although it stated that “witnesses” stated that the clause provided
transactional immunity and “found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from
declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity.” SA165.
investigated whether and to what extent prosecutors in the SDFL improperly
resolved the federal investigation of Epstein in 2007-2008 by the very NPA at issue
here. Their investigation overlapped the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell in
the SDNY and did not involve interviewing any defense counsel. The OPR did not
contain a finding as to whether the co-conspirator clause of the NPA bound other
districts, although it stated that “witnesses” stated that the clause provided
transactional immunity and “found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from
declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity.” SA165.
PANEL DECISION
On appeal, Maxwell argued, inter alia, that the NPA barred her prosecution in the
SDNY by its express language. That language read
SDNY by its express language. That language read
In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide
compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully
fulfills all the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States
also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any
compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully
fulfills all the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States
also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any
that its review “did not include search terms relevant to the NPA, and the Government has not
searched [the SDFL prosecutor’s] inbox for communications relating to the NPA.”
searched [the SDFL prosecutor’s] inbox for communications relating to the NPA.”
5
DOJ-OGR-00021834
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document