DOJ-OGR-00000012.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) arguing that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was legally limited only to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and not binding on other federal districts. It cites the US Attorney's Manual and the specific text of the NPA authorized by R. Alexander Acosta to support the claim that the agreement contained limiting language regarding its scope. The text emphasizes that the negotiation history does not support an inference that the agreement was intended to apply nationwide.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant / Subject of Investigation |
Subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and potential charges discussed in the text.
|
| R. Alexander Acosta | United States Attorney |
US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida who authorized the deferral of prosecution.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; negotiated the NPA.
|
|
| Federal Grand Jury |
Conducted the investigation from which offenses arose.
|
|
| State of Florida |
Entity designated to prosecute Epstein in lieu of federal prosecution in SDFL.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced in legal citation (United States v. Russo).
|
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 applied.
|
Relationships (1)
Acosta authorized the deferral of federal prosecution for Epstein in favor of state prosecution.
Key Quotes (3)
"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-00000012.jpg
Quote #1
"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-00000012.jpg
Quote #2
"prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000012.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,538 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page11 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-00000012
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document