{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "223",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 15 of 23\n\nthat the NPA is binding outside the SDFL, any ambiguity as to whether such an appearance exists must still be resolved against the government.6\n\nNor does the idea that the government agreed to broader immunity for Epstein's potential co-conspirators than for Epstein himself \"strain[] common sense,\" as the government argues. See Opp. 8. According to the OPR Report, the line prosecutor stated that her office \"considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.\" OPR Report at 70. She also reportedly said that Epstein \"wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened.\" Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). And Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware that the investigation had extended beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses. Under such circumstances, any competent defense lawyer would have sought the broadest immunity possible for Epstein's potential co-conspirators, in order to limit the potential that he would become embroiled in the prosecution of a third party—and in fact, Epstein did not agree to the NPA until the co-conspirator immunity provision was included. And it is entirely logical that the government agreed to a broader immunity for potential co-conspirators, whom it had no interest in prosecuting, than for Epstein himself, who was the sole focus of the government's prosecution efforts. This outcome is consistent with the language of the NPA.\n\nThe text of the NPA, read as a whole, thus creates an affirmative appearance that the co-conspirator immunity provision is not limited to the SDFL, and it is unnecessary for the Court to\n\n6 Notwithstanding the mountain of authority, in this Circuit and elsewhere, articulating the exacting standards to which the government is to be held in negotiating a plea agreement, the government implies that such standards somehow do not apply when the plea agreement is enforced by a third party. Opp. 6 n.2. This suggestion is unsupported by any authority, and the government offers no explanation why its promises of third-party immunity should be held to a lower standard than other provisions of a plea agreement.\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00003888",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 15 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the NPA is binding outside the SDFL, any ambiguity as to whether such an appearance exists must still be resolved against the government.6",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nor does the idea that the government agreed to broader immunity for Epstein's potential co-conspirators than for Epstein himself \"strain[] common sense,\" as the government argues. See Opp. 8. According to the OPR Report, the line prosecutor stated that her office \"considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.\" OPR Report at 70. She also reportedly said that Epstein \"wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened.\" Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). And Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware that the investigation had extended beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses. Under such circumstances, any competent defense lawyer would have sought the broadest immunity possible for Epstein's potential co-conspirators, in order to limit the potential that he would become embroiled in the prosecution of a third party—and in fact, Epstein did not agree to the NPA until the co-conspirator immunity provision was included. And it is entirely logical that the government agreed to a broader immunity for potential co-conspirators, whom it had no interest in prosecuting, than for Epstein himself, who was the sole focus of the government's prosecution efforts. This outcome is consistent with the language of the NPA.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The text of the NPA, read as a whole, thus creates an affirmative appearance that the co-conspirator immunity provision is not limited to the SDFL, and it is unnecessary for the Court to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 Notwithstanding the mountain of authority, in this Circuit and elsewhere, articulating the exacting standards to which the government is to be held in negotiating a plea agreement, the government implies that such standards somehow do not apply when the plea agreement is enforced by a third party. Opp. 6 n.2. This suggestion is unsupported by any authority, and the government offers no explanation why its promises of third-party immunity should be held to a lower standard than other provisions of a plea agreement.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003888",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003888"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications for Epstein's co-conspirators. The document includes citations to various reports and legal precedents."
}