{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 38\n\nthat the facts and circumstances of the negotiation of the NPA are consistent with the parties' intent to provide potential co-conspirators with the broadest immunity possible. Even if there were ambiguity, which there is not, that ambiguity must be construed against the government and in favor of the defense. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to take discovery regarding the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, and the Court should hold an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion.\n\nI. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA.\n\n\"Plea agreements have long been interpreted in accordance with contract law principles.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 269 (2d Cir. 2004). \"In interpreting whether a plea agreement has been breached, this court looks to the reasonable understanding of the parties as to the terms of the agreement.\" Id. at 269-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the government \"must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the defendant.\" Innes v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, the NPA unambiguously precludes prosecution of Epstein's potential co-conspirators, and the indictment in this case must be dismissed.\n\nIn support of its July 2020 motion for Ms. Maxwell's detention, the government raised three arguments why it contends the NPA does not bar Ms. Maxwell's prosecution: (i) that Ms. Maxwell supposedly lacks standing to enforce the NPA; (ii) that the co-conspirator immunity provision applies only in the SDFL; and (iii) that the provision is limited to conduct occurring during the 2001-07 time period and to violations of statutes specifically referenced in the NPA. Government's Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention (\"Reply Mem.\"), Dkt. No. 22 (filed Jul. 13, 2020), at 5. None of these arguments has merit.\n\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00002591",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the facts and circumstances of the negotiation of the NPA are consistent with the parties' intent to provide potential co-conspirators with the broadest immunity possible. Even if there were ambiguity, which there is not, that ambiguity must be construed against the government and in favor of the defense. Accordingly, the indictment must be dismissed. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to take discovery regarding the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, and the Court should hold an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Plea agreements have long been interpreted in accordance with contract law principles.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 269 (2d Cir. 2004). \"In interpreting whether a plea agreement has been breached, this court looks to the reasonable understanding of the parties as to the terms of the agreement.\" Id. at 269-70 (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the government \"must bear the burden for any lack of clarity in the agreement and ambiguities should be resolved in favor of the defendant.\" Innes v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974, 979 (2d Cir. 1988). Here, the NPA unambiguously precludes prosecution of Epstein's potential co-conspirators, and the indictment in this case must be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In support of its July 2020 motion for Ms. Maxwell's detention, the government raised three arguments why it contends the NPA does not bar Ms. Maxwell's prosecution: (i) that Ms. Maxwell supposedly lacks standing to enforce the NPA; (ii) that the co-conspirator immunity provision applies only in the SDFL; and (iii) that the provision is limited to conduct occurring during the 2001-07 time period and to violations of statutes specifically referenced in the NPA. Government's Reply Memorandum in Support of Detention (\"Reply Mem.\"), Dkt. No. 22 (filed Jul. 13, 2020), at 5. None of these arguments has merit.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002591",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Gonzalez",
      "Dalsheim",
      "Innes"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "July 2020",
      "Jul. 13, 2020",
      "2001-07"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 142",
      "Dkt. No. 22",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002591"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the indictment and the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal proceeding and includes citations and references to legal precedents."
}