DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (appellate court opinion/ruling)
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing (likely an appellate opinion) rejects Ghislaine Maxwell's argument that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) prevents her prosecution in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The court cites *United States v. Annabi* to conclude that the NPA was expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida and did not bind other districts like SDNY. Footnotes discuss legal precedents regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Contends that the case Annabi should not apply to the agreement; subject of prosecution by USAO-SDNY.
|
| Epstein | Co-conspirator/Subject of NPA |
Mentioned regarding his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and immunity in the Southern District o...
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Refers to the defendant in United States v. Annabi, a case cited as precedent regarding plea agreements.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; the prosecuting body against Maxwell.
|
|
| Southern District of Florida |
The jurisdiction where the original NPA was negotiated and to which its scope is expressly limited.
|
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Mentioned in the quoted text of the NPA regarding the joint investigation.
|
|
| United States Attorney's Office |
Mentioned in the quoted text of the NPA regarding the joint investigation.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by 'this Circuit' and citations to '2d Cir.'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction limiting the scope of the NPA.
|
|
|
Mentioned in footnote 12 regarding a plea agreement in U.S. v. Prisco.
|
|
|
Mentioned in footnote 12 regarding a plea agreement in U.S. v. Gonzalez.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Applying Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
Quote #1
"There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
Quote #2
"Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
Quote #3
"After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement... nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,201 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page10 of 26
contemplates a broader restriction.”11 And while Maxwell contends that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any
11 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
12 See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only where subsequent charges are “sufficiently distinct” from charges covered by an earlier agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause applied, the subsequent charges were “sufficiently distinct” and therefore fell outside the Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and subsequent charges.
10
DOJ-OGR-00000011
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document