Fourth Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Third Circuit
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00000051.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal report discussing a circuit split regarding federal criminal law, specifically the binding nature of plea agreement promises made by United States Attorneys. It details how the Third, Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits apply 'Santobello's instruction' that such promises bind the government, citing the Third Circuit's ruling in United States v. Gebbie (2002) and the Fourth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Carter (1972) to explain that U.S. Attorneys' commitments bind the entire federal government.
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
This legal document argues that the government is precluded from charging the Appellant under Count Six due to a prior Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The argument is based on legal precedent against prosecuting the same crime in a new district and asserts that the charge, involving the trafficking of a witness named Carolyn, falls within the time period covered by the NPA. The document also references a court's finding that the NPA covers Maxwell's involvement in offenses committed by Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017623.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal text (likely a law journal article from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the footer 'DAVID SCHOEN'. The text heavily critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the OLC's 'contorted position' that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed. It argues that this interpretation renders the statutory words 'detection' and 'investigation' meaningless and conflicts with standard definitions of when a prosecution begins.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity