United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Party to non prosecution agreement |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Entered into non prosecution agreement npa |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Appeal | Appeal addressing five questions regarding Maxwell's prosecution and sentence | N/A | View |
| 2007-09-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution and plea agreement (NPA) with the United States At... | Southern District of Florida | View |
EFTA00010542.pdf
This document is the United States Government's legal response to proposed remedies by victims (Petitioners) of Jeffrey Epstein following a court finding that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The government admits its communication with victims was insufficient but argues against the Petitioners' request to partially rescind the NPA, citing contract law, potential harm to other victims relying on the agreement, and separation of powers. Instead, the government proposes holding a public hearing for victim impact statements, arranging meetings between victims and DOJ representatives, and mandating additional training for prosecutors.
EFTA00010507.pdf
This document is a court opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The court ruled that the government violated the Petitioners' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The court granted partial summary judgment for the Petitioners regarding the CVRA violation and denied the government's cross-motion, while deferring the issue of remedy to a later date.
DOJ-OGR-00000065.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal opinion affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for 'Maxwell' (presumably Ghislaine Maxwell). It addresses five appellate questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution and if her sentence was procedurally reasonable. The document also lists the attorneys involved for both the Appellee (United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York) and the Defendant-Appellant.
DOJ-OGR-00000044.tif
This document outlines the procedural background of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from September 2007, where he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida and serve an eighteen-month sentence, in exchange for the U.S. agreeing not to prosecute him for offenses from 2001-2007 and not to charge potential co-conspirators. It also highlights a legal inconsistency regarding the enforceability of such agreements across different circuit courts, referencing a motion to dismiss by Maxwell that would have been granted under different circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021805.jpg
This page from a legal filing argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited in scope to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the agreement's text, the negotiation history, and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to support the claim that the NPA was not intended to bind other districts from prosecuting Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity