{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "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 13 of 38\n\nthe NPA's language and structure, as well as the manner in which it was negotiated, were highly atypical. The result was a one-off agreement that deviated in several material respects from, and bore little resemblance to, a standard agreement.\n\nThe Department of Justice's OPR, after investigating Acosta's handling of the Epstein case, characterized the NPA as a \"unique resolution.\" Exh. B (Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Executive Summary of Report, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020) at x. In particular, the OPR concluded that Acosta \"agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances.\" Id. While the co-conspirator immunity provision appears to be one of the terms to which the OPR was referring, the government is bound by it.\n\nA. The Structure of the NPA\n\nThe NPA is a seven-page document consisting of several factual recitals (NPA at 1-2), a paragraph providing for the non-prosecution of Epstein if he complies with the NPA (id. at 2), a list of enumerated \"terms\" (id. at 5), and, finally, five separate paragraphs containing various provisions, including the co-conspirator immunity provision at issue here (id. at 5). Although it contains no defined terms other than \"State Attorney's Office\" and \"Epstein,\" the NPA clearly separates \"the United States\" as a whole from the USAO-SDFL, repeatedly referring explicitly to the USAO where such a limitation is intended. See, e.g., id. at 3 (\"Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements . . . .\"); id. at 5 (\"the United States Attorney has no authority\" to bind state prosecutors); id. at 6 (\"Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution\"). Thus, the\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002585",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the NPA's language and structure, as well as the manner in which it was negotiated, were highly atypical. The result was a one-off agreement that deviated in several material respects from, and bore little resemblance to, a standard agreement.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Department of Justice's OPR, after investigating Acosta's handling of the Epstein case, characterized the NPA as a \"unique resolution.\" Exh. B (Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Executive Summary of Report, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation, November 2020) at x. In particular, the OPR concluded that Acosta \"agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the consideration required under the circumstances.\" Id. While the co-conspirator immunity provision appears to be one of the terms to which the OPR was referring, the government is bound by it.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Structure of the NPA",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The NPA is a seven-page document consisting of several factual recitals (NPA at 1-2), a paragraph providing for the non-prosecution of Epstein if he complies with the NPA (id. at 2), a list of enumerated \"terms\" (id. at 5), and, finally, five separate paragraphs containing various provisions, including the co-conspirator immunity provision at issue here (id. at 5). Although it contains no defined terms other than \"State Attorney's Office\" and \"Epstein,\" the NPA clearly separates \"the United States\" as a whole from the USAO-SDFL, repeatedly referring explicitly to the USAO where such a limitation is intended. See, e.g., id. at 3 (\"Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all proposed agreements . . . .\"); id. at 5 (\"the United States Attorney has no authority\" to bind state prosecutors); id. at 6 (\"Epstein hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such prosecution\"). Thus, the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002585",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Acosta",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "November 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 142",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002585"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible."
}