DOJ-OGR-00004871.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court opinion attachment
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This page is an excerpt from a legal document filed on July 2, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text appears to be from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in *Commonwealth v. Cosby* (indicated by docket [J-100-2020]), which was used by Maxwell's defense to argue about the enforceability of non-prosecution agreements. The text discusses the scope of prosecutorial discretion versus a defendant's due process rights and fundamental fairness, specifically when a defendant relies on a prosecutor's actions to their detriment.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Clancy | Legal Citation |
Cited case law regarding prosecutor discretion (192 A.3d at 53).
|
| Stipetich | Legal Citation |
Cited case law regarding district attorney discretion (652 A.2d at 1295).
|
| Santobello | Legal Citation |
Cited case law regarding due process.
|
| Baird | Legal Citation |
Cited case law regarding due process.
|
| Scotland | Legal Citation |
Cited case law regarding due process.
|
| Sims | Legal Citation |
Referenced in Commonwealth v. Sims regarding federal and state due process principles.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Constitution |
Referenced regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|
| Pennsylvania Constitution |
Referenced regarding Article I, Section 9.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in footer stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to its Constitution and case law.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The prosecutor enjoys 'tremendous' discretion to wield 'the power to decide whether to initiate formal criminal proceedings...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00004871.jpg
Quote #1
"While the prosecutor’s discretion in charging decisions is undoubtedly vast, it is not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a manner that violates a defendant’s rights."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004871.jpg
Quote #2
"The foregoing precedents make clear that, at a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor, his or her due process rights are implicated."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004871.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,158 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 59 of 80
There is no doubt that promises made during plea negotiations or as part of fully
consummated plea agreements differ in kind from the unilateral discretion exercised when
a prosecutor declines to pursue criminal charges against a defendant. As suggested by
the trial court in the present case, such an exercise of discretion is not per se enforceable
in the same way that a bargained-for exchange is under contract law. The prosecutor
enjoys “tremendous” discretion to wield “the power to decide whether to initiate formal
criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the
accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and,
ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial.” Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53. Unless
patently abused, this vast discretion is exercised generally beyond the reach of judicial
interference. See Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that “the ultimate discretion to file
criminal charges lies in the district attorney”).
consummated plea agreements differ in kind from the unilateral discretion exercised when
a prosecutor declines to pursue criminal charges against a defendant. As suggested by
the trial court in the present case, such an exercise of discretion is not per se enforceable
in the same way that a bargained-for exchange is under contract law. The prosecutor
enjoys “tremendous” discretion to wield “the power to decide whether to initiate formal
criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the
accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and,
ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial.” Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53. Unless
patently abused, this vast discretion is exercised generally beyond the reach of judicial
interference. See Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that “the ultimate discretion to file
criminal charges lies in the district attorney”).
While the prosecutor’s discretion in charging decisions is undoubtedly vast, it is
not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a
manner that violates a defendant’s rights. The foregoing precedents make clear that, at
a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor,
his or her due process rights are implicated. See, e.g., Santobello, Baird, and Scotland,
supra.
not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a
manner that violates a defendant’s rights. The foregoing precedents make clear that, at
a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor,
his or her due process rights are implicated. See, e.g., Santobello, Baird, and Scotland,
supra.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section
9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandate that all interactions between the government
and the individual are conducted in accordance with the protections of due process. See
Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 941 n.6 (Pa. 2007) (noting that federal and state
due process principles generally are understood as operating co-extensively). We have
explained that review of a due process claim “entails an assessment as to whether the
challenged proceeding or conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the
9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandate that all interactions between the government
and the individual are conducted in accordance with the protections of due process. See
Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 941 n.6 (Pa. 2007) (noting that federal and state
due process principles generally are understood as operating co-extensively). We have
explained that review of a due process claim “entails an assessment as to whether the
challenged proceeding or conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the
[J-100-2020] - 58
DOJ-OGR-00004871
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document