DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
676 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
5
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (page 44 of 113)
File Size:
676 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues against allowing the Government to bypass the terms of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) by moving jurisdictions ('parachuting into a new circuit'). It cites various legal precedents to argue that the court should apply the law of the circuit where the violation or agreement occurred (referencing the 11th Circuit) to protect the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights in the plea-bargaining process.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Weinstein, J. | Judge |
Cited in U.S. v. Restrepo (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
|
| Jefferies | Legal Precedent |
Cited case regarding construing agreements (908 F.2d at 1523)
|
| Rowe | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (676 F.2d at 526 n.4)
|
| Restrepo | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (U.S. v. Restrepo)
|
| Ozuna | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (U.S. v. Ozuna)
|
| Longo | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (U.S. v. Longo)
|
| Gerena | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (U.S. v. Gerena)
|
| Pelletier | Legal Precedent |
Cited case (U.S. v. Pelletier)
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced regarding settled canons for construing agreements
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referenced in citation U.S. v. Pelletier (2d Cir. 1990)
|
|
| The Government |
Refers to the prosecution/DOJ
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'
|
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned regarding legal canons
|
|
|
Eastern District of New York (Legal Citation)
|
|
|
Southern District of Florida (Legal Citation)
|
|
|
Western District of New York (Legal Citation)
|
|
|
District of Connecticut (Legal Citation)
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of prosecution, plea-bargaining process, and constitutional rights.
Key Quotes (3)
"disregard the NPA’s carefully-crafted text for the Government’s benefit"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
Quote #1
"This rule prevents the Government from parachuting into a new circuit and prosecuting a case it would not otherwise have been able to bring."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
Quote #2
"the Fifth Amendment requires courts to hold the Government to a minimum standard of conduct in the plea-bargaining process."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021091.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,633 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page44 of 113
anticipate, disregard the NPA’s carefully-crafted text for the Government’s benefit,
and violate settled canons within the Eleventh Circuit (and every other circuit) for
construing such agreements. See Jefferies, 908 F.2d at 1523; Rowe, 676 F.2d at
526 n.4.
and violate settled canons within the Eleventh Circuit (and every other circuit) for
construing such agreements. See Jefferies, 908 F.2d at 1523; Rowe, 676 F.2d at
526 n.4.
The Government will likely respond that, on matters of federal common law,
this Court should apply the lex fora without regard to regional circuit differences.
But in criminal cases, differences in circuit law can affect the Constitution’s
guarantees. This principle is illustrated by the inter-circuit exclusionary rule:
where a search or seizure is executed in one circuit but the defendant is charged in
a different circuit, courts will look to the law of the circuit where the search or
seizure happened to “ensure[] that the proper level of deterrence is maintained in
the locale where the violation occurred.” U.S. v. Restrepo, 890 F.Supp. 180, 191
(E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Weinstein, J.); see also U.S. v. Ozuna, 129 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1354
(S.D. Fla. 2001); U.S. v. Longo, 70 F.Supp.2d 225, 261 (W.D.N.Y. 1999); U.S. v.
Gerena, 667 F.Supp. 911 (D. Conn. 1987). This rule prevents the Government
from parachuting into a new circuit and prosecuting a case it would not otherwise
have been able to bring. That rationale applies with equal force here. Like the
Fourth Amendment in the search and seizure context, the Fifth Amendment
requires courts to hold the Government to a minimum standard of conduct in the
plea-bargaining process. See U.S. v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1990)
this Court should apply the lex fora without regard to regional circuit differences.
But in criminal cases, differences in circuit law can affect the Constitution’s
guarantees. This principle is illustrated by the inter-circuit exclusionary rule:
where a search or seizure is executed in one circuit but the defendant is charged in
a different circuit, courts will look to the law of the circuit where the search or
seizure happened to “ensure[] that the proper level of deterrence is maintained in
the locale where the violation occurred.” U.S. v. Restrepo, 890 F.Supp. 180, 191
(E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Weinstein, J.); see also U.S. v. Ozuna, 129 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1354
(S.D. Fla. 2001); U.S. v. Longo, 70 F.Supp.2d 225, 261 (W.D.N.Y. 1999); U.S. v.
Gerena, 667 F.Supp. 911 (D. Conn. 1987). This rule prevents the Government
from parachuting into a new circuit and prosecuting a case it would not otherwise
have been able to bring. That rationale applies with equal force here. Like the
Fourth Amendment in the search and seizure context, the Fifth Amendment
requires courts to hold the Government to a minimum standard of conduct in the
plea-bargaining process. See U.S. v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1990)
29
DOJ-OGR-00021091
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document