{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "317",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 14\n\ncase focused on whether prosecutors were required to honor a promise that the court found to be clear in the absence of a formal plea agreement. Even if this Court agreed with the analysis in Cosby, that opinion sheds no light on the proper interpretation of the NPA in this case.\n\nAfter considering the arguments in Maxwell's renewed motion and letter of supplemental authority, the Court's view remains unchanged from its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Under Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It thus does not bar the charges in the S2 superseding indictment.\n\nII. This prosecution does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy\n\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause provides that \"[n]o person shall be . . . subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.\" U.S. Const. amend. V. \"This protection applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense.\" United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). \"A defendant may only raise a Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (i.e. jeopardy has 'attached') sometime before the alleged 'second' prosecution.\" United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 816 (2d Cir. 1997). A defendant is put in jeopardy when the jury in their case is empaneled or upon the defendant's entry of a guilty plea. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001). Until then, a defendant has not been put in jeopardy and the Government is free to commence a prosecution.\n\nMaxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for the offenses charged in this case. She concededly has not been punished or prosecuted for any prior offense. She was never charged in the Southern District of Florida in connection with the Epstein investigation. She agreed to nothing in Epstein's NPA, because she was not a party to it. She suffered no criminal consequences as a result of Epstein's guilty plea in Florida state court. To the contrary, there is\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004979",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "case focused on whether prosecutors were required to honor a promise that the court found to be clear in the absence of a formal plea agreement. Even if this Court agreed with the analysis in Cosby, that opinion sheds no light on the proper interpretation of the NPA in this case.\n\nAfter considering the arguments in Maxwell's renewed motion and letter of supplemental authority, the Court's view remains unchanged from its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Under Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It thus does not bar the charges in the S2 superseding indictment.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. This prosecution does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that \"[n]o person shall be . . . subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.\" U.S. Const. amend. V. \"This protection applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense.\" United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). \"A defendant may only raise a Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (i.e. jeopardy has 'attached') sometime before the alleged 'second' prosecution.\" United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 816 (2d Cir. 1997). A defendant is put in jeopardy when the jury in their case is empaneled or upon the defendant's entry of a guilty plea. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001). Until then, a defendant has not been put in jeopardy and the Government is free to commence a prosecution.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for the offenses charged in this case. She concededly has not been punished or prosecuted for any prior offense. She was never charged in the Southern District of Florida in connection with the Epstein investigation. She agreed to nothing in Epstein's NPA, because she was not a party to it. She suffered no criminal consequences as a result of Epstein's guilty plea in Florida state court. To the contrary, there is",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004979",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Cosby",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 16, 2021",
      "08/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 317",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004979"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, discussing the concept of double jeopardy and the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) in the context of the Epstein investigation."
}