DOJ-OGR-00000248.tif
40 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document/court filing excerpt
File Size:
40 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing criticizing the Second Circuit's decision regarding the scope of the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the government's promise not to prosecute Epstein's co-conspirators, including four unnamed individuals, was unqualified and should be upheld, citing a Supreme Court precedent (Santobello v. New York).
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Defendant/Plea agreement participant |
Epstein's guilty plea and co-conspirators
|
| [four names] | Potential co-conspirators |
Mentioned as part of the promise not to institute criminal charges against them.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
Party in legal proceedings, agreeing not to institute criminal charges.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court whose decision is being discussed and criticized.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney's |
Referring to the U.S. Attorney's authority in the context of the Epstein NPA.
|
|
| Southern District of Florida |
Geographical region mentioned in relation to the scope of the promise.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Epstein's guilty plea and other penalties and concessions.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Cited in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).
|
|
|
Mentioned as a geographical limitation that the promise is NOT subject to.
|
Relationships (2)
Mentioned in the government's promise not to institute criminal charges against 'any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four names].'
The U.S. made a promise in exchange for Epstein's guilty plea.
Key Quotes (2)
""the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four names].""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000248.tif
Quote #1
""[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000248.tif
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,717 characters)
4
what parties mean when they use the term "the
United States” without further qualification.
II. The Second Circuit's decision below is wrong
and violates the principles set forth in this
Court's prior opinions.
In attempting to defend the Second Circuit's out-
come, the government advances a series of contentions
about the Epstein NPA's scope, the U.S. Attorney's
authority, contract law doctrines, and canons of con-
struction. Each lacks merit.
As the government acknowledges, Opp.8, the start-
ing point in any contract is the text. Here, the text
could not be more clear. In exchange for Epstein's
guilty plea and other penalties and concessions,
"the United States also agrees that it will not
institute any criminal charges against any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited
to [four names]." (emphasis added).
This promise is unqualified. It is not geographically
limited to the Southern District of Florida, it is not
conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the
government at the time, it does not depend on what
any particular government attorney may have had in
his or her head about who might be a co-conspirator,
and it contains no other caveat or exception. This
should be the end of the discussion. See Santobello v.
New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) ("[W]hen a plea rests in
any significant degree on a promise or agreement of
the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the
inducement or consideration, such promise must be
fulfilled.") (ignored by the government in its opposition).
The government seeks to evade this straightforward
language by focusing on other clauses in the NPA and
on extrinsic context, Opp.8-10, but its efforts only
DOJ-OGR-00000248
what parties mean when they use the term "the
United States” without further qualification.
II. The Second Circuit's decision below is wrong
and violates the principles set forth in this
Court's prior opinions.
In attempting to defend the Second Circuit's out-
come, the government advances a series of contentions
about the Epstein NPA's scope, the U.S. Attorney's
authority, contract law doctrines, and canons of con-
struction. Each lacks merit.
As the government acknowledges, Opp.8, the start-
ing point in any contract is the text. Here, the text
could not be more clear. In exchange for Epstein's
guilty plea and other penalties and concessions,
"the United States also agrees that it will not
institute any criminal charges against any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited
to [four names]." (emphasis added).
This promise is unqualified. It is not geographically
limited to the Southern District of Florida, it is not
conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the
government at the time, it does not depend on what
any particular government attorney may have had in
his or her head about who might be a co-conspirator,
and it contains no other caveat or exception. This
should be the end of the discussion. See Santobello v.
New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) ("[W]hen a plea rests in
any significant degree on a promise or agreement of
the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the
inducement or consideration, such promise must be
fulfilled.") (ignored by the government in its opposition).
The government seeks to evade this straightforward
language by focusing on other clauses in the NPA and
on extrinsic context, Opp.8-10, but its efforts only
DOJ-OGR-00000248
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document