DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
689 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
689 KB
Summary
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.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carter |
Mentioned in a case citation, Carter, 454 F.2d at 427-28, which is quoted for a legal principle.
|
|
| Annabi |
Mentioned in the context of a legal qualification from a case, 'the “sufficiently-distinct” qualification to Annabi'.
|
|
| Appellant | Appellant |
The party in the current case being discussed, whom the Government is allegedly precluded from charging under Count Six.
|
| Carolyn | Accuser/Witness |
The only accuser on whom Count Six is based. She was also a witness in the SDFL investigation. Allegedly trafficked b...
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Alleged to have trafficked Carolyn from 2001 to 2004 under Count Six.
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in a court holding that the NPA covers her involvement in offenses committed by Epstein.
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as having committed offenses between 2001 and 2007, in which Maxwell was involved.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the prosecuting authority in the U.S. federal legal system.
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Mentioned as a potential 'forum of convenience for the Government to reprosecute'.
|
| Fourth Circuit | Court |
Cited for its opinion on prosecuting a defendant for charges already resolved by a plea agreement.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'Count Six alleged that Defendant trafficked Carolyn from 2001 to 2004' and that Carolyn is 'The only accuser on whom Count Six is based'.
Key Quotes (3)
"sufficiently distinct."Source
— Unknown
(A legal standard or qualification being discussed in the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
Quote #1
"the honor of the government[,] public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice in a federal scheme of government."Source
— Fourth Circuit
(Quoted from the Carter case to describe what is at stake when prosecuting a defendant for charges already resolved by a plea agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
Quote #2
"cover[s] any involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007,"Source
— The court
(A holding by a court regarding the scope of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).)
DOJ-OGR-00021094.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,627 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page47 of 113
them “sufficiently distinct.” A contrary rule—allowing the Government to gainsay
a non-prosecution promise in plea agreement by hopping to a new district and
prosecuting the same crime, covering the same time period—would upend federal
plea bargaining nationally, disrupt expectations beyond this case, and turn the
Second Circuit into a forum of convenience for the Government to reprosecute
pled-out offenses that touch multiple federal districts. As the Fourth Circuit noted,
prosecuting a defendant for the same charges resolved by plea agreement in a
different district puts at stake “the honor of the government[,] public confidence in
the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice in a
federal scheme of government.” Carter, 454 F.2d at 427-28.
a non-prosecution promise in plea agreement by hopping to a new district and
prosecuting the same crime, covering the same time period—would upend federal
plea bargaining nationally, disrupt expectations beyond this case, and turn the
Second Circuit into a forum of convenience for the Government to reprosecute
pled-out offenses that touch multiple federal districts. As the Fourth Circuit noted,
prosecuting a defendant for the same charges resolved by plea agreement in a
different district puts at stake “the honor of the government[,] public confidence in
the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice in a
federal scheme of government.” Carter, 454 F.2d at 427-28.
Here, under the “sufficiently-distinct” qualification to Annabi, the
Government was precluded, at minimum, from charging Appellant under Count
Six. This count arose out of the 2006-08 SDFL investigation and is based on a
trafficking statute, § 1591(a), that is explicitly mentioned in the NPA. A175. The
only accuser on whom Count Six is based, Carolyn, was also a witness in the
SDFL investigation. [T: 1604-5, 1614, 1679]. But unlike the SDNY charges in
Annabi, Count Six falls wholly within the time period contemplated by the NPA as
well. Compare 771 F.2d at 672. Count Six alleged that Defendant trafficked
Carolyn from 2001 to 2004. The court held that the NPA “cover[s] any
involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007,
Government was precluded, at minimum, from charging Appellant under Count
Six. This count arose out of the 2006-08 SDFL investigation and is based on a
trafficking statute, § 1591(a), that is explicitly mentioned in the NPA. A175. The
only accuser on whom Count Six is based, Carolyn, was also a witness in the
SDFL investigation. [T: 1604-5, 1614, 1679]. But unlike the SDNY charges in
Annabi, Count Six falls wholly within the time period contemplated by the NPA as
well. Compare 771 F.2d at 672. Count Six alleged that Defendant trafficked
Carolyn from 2001 to 2004. The court held that the NPA “cover[s] any
involvement of Maxwell in offenses committed by Epstein from 2001 to 2007,
32
DOJ-OGR-00021094
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document