{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 34\n\n1. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar this prosecution\n\nIn September 2007, under investigation by both federal and state authorities, Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Dkt. No. 142 at 1-2. Epstein agreed in the NPA to plead guilty in Florida state court to soliciting minors for prostitution and to serve eighteen months in a county jail. Id. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge him with federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida stemming from its investigation of his conduct between 2001 and 2007. Id. It also agreed not to bring criminal charges against any of his \"potential co-conspirators.\" Id.\n\nAs a recent report from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility observed, the NPA was unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy. OPR Report, Gov. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 204-3, at x, 80, 175, 179, 260-61. The U.S. Attorney's promise not to prosecute unidentified co-conspirators marks a stark departure from normal practice for federal plea agreements. This provision appears to have been added \"with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors.\" Id. at 169, 185. The report concluded that the U.S. Attorney's negotiation and approval of the NPA did not amount to professional misconduct, but nonetheless reflected \"poor judgment.\" Id. at 169.\n\nOnly the NPA's effect, and not its wisdom, is presently before the Court. Maxwell contends that the NPA bars this prosecution, because she is charged as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any geographical or temporal limitations. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment.\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003677",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar this prosecution",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In September 2007, under investigation by both federal and state authorities, Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Dkt. No. 142 at 1-2. Epstein agreed in the NPA to plead guilty in Florida state court to soliciting minors for prostitution and to serve eighteen months in a county jail. Id. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed not to charge him with federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida stemming from its investigation of his conduct between 2001 and 2007. Id. It also agreed not to bring criminal charges against any of his \"potential co-conspirators.\" Id.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a recent report from the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility observed, the NPA was unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy. OPR Report, Gov. Ex. 3, Dkt. No. 204-3, at x, 80, 175, 179, 260-61. The U.S. Attorney's promise not to prosecute unidentified co-conspirators marks a stark departure from normal practice for federal plea agreements. This provision appears to have been added \"with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors.\" Id. at 169, 185. The report concluded that the U.S. Attorney's negotiation and approval of the NPA did not amount to professional misconduct, but nonetheless reflected \"poor judgment.\" Id. at 169.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Only the NPA's effect, and not its wisdom, is presently before the Court. Maxwell contends that the NPA bars this prosecution, because she is charged as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein and the NPA's co-conspirator provision lacks any geographical or temporal limitations. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003677",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility",
      "Office of the United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 2007",
      "2001",
      "2007",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "Dkt. No. 142",
      "Dkt. No. 204-3",
      "S1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003677"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell, discussing the implications of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement."
}