Abbamonte
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021095.jpg
This legal document argues that a charge (Count Six) should be dismissed because the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) is bound by a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The author contends that the NPA shows an "affirmative appearance" of a broad restriction on prosecution for co-conspirators, contrasting it with the specifically limited non-prosecution provision for Epstein, which was restricted to "in this District."
DOJ-OGR-00021093.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues points regarding the scope of plea agreements and Double Jeopardy. It analyzes the 'Abbamonte-Alessi rule' and the 'Annabi' precedent to determine if a plea agreement binding 'the Government' applies to other United States Attorney Offices (USAOs). The text argues that for charges to be distinct enough to bypass the rule, they must cover a new time period, noting that in the Annabi case, the conspiracy period was two years longer.
DOJ-OGR-00021081.jpg
This legal document excerpt critiques the Second Circuit's interpretation of plea agreements, arguing it misread its own precedent in the 'Papa' case to create an "illogical" rule. This rule is contrasted with United States Supreme Court precedent from cases like 'Santobello' and 'Giglio', which establish that promises made by one prosecutor are binding on other prosecutors within the same office and must be disclosed.
DOJ-OGR-00021080.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that discusses the legal precedent set in the Annabi case concerning the scope of plea agreements. It explains the "Annabi rule," which holds that a plea agreement only binds the U.S. Attorney's office in the district where it was made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document also highlights that this rule has been sharply criticized by other courts, such as in U.S. v. Gebbie, for lacking a sound analytical basis.
DOJ-OGR-00021838.jpg
This legal document analyzes court precedent regarding whether a plea agreement in one federal district binds prosecutors in another. It argues that the 'Annabi rule' has been sharply criticized and was based on a misreading of prior cases from the Second Circuit, specifically Abbamonte, Alessi, and Papa. The document suggests that the precedent set by these earlier cases does not support the broad interpretation applied in Annabi.
DOJ-OGR-00004715.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 295) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text presents a legal argument by the prosecution distinguishing the current case from the precedent set in *Annabi*, *Abbamonte*, and *Alessi* regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause and plea agreements. The prosecution argues that Maxwell cannot claim Double Jeopardy protections because she was not previously prosecuted for the offenses listed in the S2 Indictment, and disputes her interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
DOJ-OGR-00004714.jpg
This page is from a government legal filing (Document 295) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on May 25, 2021. The text argues against the defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL). Citing the *Annabi* precedent, the government asserts that plea agreements are generally only binding in the specific district where they are signed, not universally across all federal districts.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity