{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "58",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 58 of 80\n\nrather than on contract law principles. Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980), is instructive. In that case, the parties had reached a tentative, preliminary plea agreement. But before the defendant could formally enter the plea, the prosecutor attempted to add another term to the deal. Id. at 361-62. The defendant rejected the new term and sought specific performance of the original, unconsummated agreement. Id. The district court denied his request. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the agreement was not formalized and accepted by the court, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance under a contract law theory. Id. at 362. The appellate court noted that, absent detrimental reliance upon the prosecutor's offer, a defendant's due process rights were sufficiently safeguarded by his right to a jury trial. Id. at 365. The court cautioned, however, that, by contrast, when a \"defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees.\" Id.22\n\nConsidered together, these authorities obligate courts to hold prosecutors to their word, to enforce promises, to ensure that defendants' decisions are made with a full understanding of the circumstances, and to prevent fraudulent inducements of waivers of one or more constitutional rights. Prosecutors can be bound by their assurances or decisions under principles of contract law or by application of the fundamental fairness considerations that inform and undergird the due process of law. The law is clear that, based upon their unique role in the criminal justice system, prosecutors generally are bound by their assurances, particularly when defendants rely to their detriment upon those guarantees.\n\n22 Ultimately, the court did not grant the defendant relief under a theory of detrimental reliance because there was \"no claim in this case of such reliance.\" Scotland, 614 F.2d at 365.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 57\nDOJ-OGR-00004870",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 58 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "rather than on contract law principles. Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980), is instructive. In that case, the parties had reached a tentative, preliminary plea agreement. But before the defendant could formally enter the plea, the prosecutor attempted to add another term to the deal. Id. at 361-62. The defendant rejected the new term and sought specific performance of the original, unconsummated agreement. Id. The district court denied his request. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the agreement was not formalized and accepted by the court, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance under a contract law theory. Id. at 362. The appellate court noted that, absent detrimental reliance upon the prosecutor's offer, a defendant's due process rights were sufficiently safeguarded by his right to a jury trial. Id. at 365. The court cautioned, however, that, by contrast, when a \"defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees.\" Id.22",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Considered together, these authorities obligate courts to hold prosecutors to their word, to enforce promises, to ensure that defendants' decisions are made with a full understanding of the circumstances, and to prevent fraudulent inducements of waivers of one or more constitutional rights. Prosecutors can be bound by their assurances or decisions under principles of contract law or by application of the fundamental fairness considerations that inform and undergird the due process of law. The law is clear that, based upon their unique role in the criminal justice system, prosecutors generally are bound by their assurances, particularly when defendants rely to their detriment upon those guarantees.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22 Ultimately, the court did not grant the defendant relief under a theory of detrimental reliance because there was \"no claim in this case of such reliance.\" Scotland, 614 F.2d at 365.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 57",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004870",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government of Virgin Islands",
      "Circuit Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Virgin Islands"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/02/21",
      "1980"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "614 F.2d 360",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004870"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}