{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "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 6 of 23\n\nNPA to be read more narrowly than the language provides, arguing that following the NPA's plain language would contradict \"common sense.\" (Opp.1 8, 16.) But a non-prosecution agreement is not an ordinary contract. Federal prosecutors know how to draft clear limitations on promises made to criminal defendants, and they have a unique obligation to do so. What strains \"common sense\" is the notion that any reasonable prosecutor who intended the NPA to be read as the government contends would have omitted the limitations and modifications the government now seeks—particularly when dealing with a defendant who sought to \"resolve globally\" his criminal liability. NPA at 2. The Court should therefore decline the government's invitation to rewrite the NPA to its liking, should enforce the NPA as written, and should grant Ms. Maxwell's Motion.\n\nIn the alternative, the Court should permit discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intent with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision. While Ms. Maxwell contends that the NPA unambiguously bars her prosecution here, and that neither discovery nor a hearing is necessary for the Court to grant this motion, the government's arguments regarding the NPA parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the consideration of evidence. Because Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty, has no personal knowledge regarding the parties' intent and no access to relevant documents, she should be permitted to take discovery in advance of any hearing.\n\nI. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It.\n\nThe NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision forecloses \"any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to\" four named individuals. NPA at 5 (emphasis added). The phrase \"potential co-conspirators of Epstein\" obviously includes Ms. Maxwell. As the opening statement of the Indictment makes clear: \"The charges\n\n1 \"Opp.\" refers herein to the Government's Omnibus Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003879",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 6 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "NPA to be read more narrowly than the language provides, arguing that following the NPA's plain language would contradict \"common sense.\" (Opp.1 8, 16.) But a non-prosecution agreement is not an ordinary contract. Federal prosecutors know how to draft clear limitations on promises made to criminal defendants, and they have a unique obligation to do so. What strains \"common sense\" is the notion that any reasonable prosecutor who intended the NPA to be read as the government contends would have omitted the limitations and modifications the government now seeks—particularly when dealing with a defendant who sought to \"resolve globally\" his criminal liability. NPA at 2. The Court should therefore decline the government's invitation to rewrite the NPA to its liking, should enforce the NPA as written, and should grant Ms. Maxwell's Motion.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the alternative, the Court should permit discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intent with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision. While Ms. Maxwell contends that the NPA unambiguously bars her prosecution here, and that neither discovery nor a hearing is necessary for the Court to grant this motion, the government's arguments regarding the NPA parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the consideration of evidence. Because Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty, has no personal knowledge regarding the parties' intent and no access to relevant documents, she should be permitted to take discovery in advance of any hearing.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision forecloses \"any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to\" four named individuals. NPA at 5 (emphasis added). The phrase \"potential co-conspirators of Epstein\" obviously includes Ms. Maxwell. As the opening statement of the Indictment makes clear: \"The charges",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 \"Opp.\" refers herein to the Government's Omnibus Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003879",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "NPA at 2",
      "NPA at 5",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003879"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with references to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and the Government's Omnibus Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions. The text is printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}