DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
657 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
657 KB
Summary
This document is page 45 of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023 (Case 22-1426). It argues that the government must adhere to plea bargains and immunity agreements, specifically referencing a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and arguing that 'Count Six' falls within the timeframe of that NPA. It cites case law (Harvey, Annabi) to support the argument that the government is held to a high standard regarding nationwide immunity promises and that new charges must be 'sufficiently distinct' from those covered by a plea.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Referenced as 'the Government' and 'United States' regarding immunity promises
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Referenced regarding applicable law
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for 'nationwide immunity'
|
Relationships (1)
The Government
→
Legal Adversaries
→
Defendants
Context of plea bargains and immunity agreements discussed in the brief.
Key Quotes (4)
"[D]ue process requires that the government adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
Quote #1
"[C]onstitutional and supervisory concerns require holding the Government to a greater degree of responsibility…for imprecisions or ambiguities in plea agreements"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
Quote #2
"Thus, when the Government promises immunity on behalf of “the United States,” in a legal context where such promise will be construed to mean nationwide immunity, this Court should ensure that the Government keeps its promise"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
Quote #3
"Annabi does not apply to Count Six because that count falls wholly within the timeframe contemplated by the NPA"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021092.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,535 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page45 of 113
(“[D]ue process requires that the government adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes”); Harvey, 791 F.2d at 300 (“[C]onstitutional and supervisory concerns require holding the Government to a greater degree of responsibility…for imprecisions or ambiguities in plea agreements”). Thus, when the Government promises immunity on behalf of “the United States,” in a legal context where such promise will be construed to mean nationwide immunity, this Court should ensure that the Government keeps its promise in accordance with the law of the place where it was made.
3. Annabi does not apply to Count Six because that count falls wholly within the timeframe contemplated by the NPA
Even if Second Circuit law applied, Annabi’s rule of construction is subject to an important caveat: the new charges must be “sufficiently distinct” from those resolved by the plea “to warrant application of [the] rule.” 771 F.2d at 672. “[S]ufficiently distinct,” in this context, means at least partially encompassing a different time period. Id. Because Count Six relates to a timeframe wholly swallowed by the NPA, (A144), Annabi does not apply to that count.
The paragraph within which Annabi articulates its “sufficiently distinct” standard responded to an argument by the defendants that included references to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The paragraph from Annabi reads, in pertinent part (and with context supplied), as follows:
30
DOJ-OGR-00021092
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document