{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 32\nago when the events were still recent.6 Accordingly, because the USAO-SDNY is bound by the\nterms of the NPA as to the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six for the reasons discussed\nbelow, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those counts.\nB. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six.\nAlthough the Court ruled that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges\nin the S1 Indictment (Dkt. 207 at 4-6), the NPA does bind the USAO-SDNY as to the sex\ntrafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six that were added to the S2 Indictment.\nUnited States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (1985) and its progeny, which the Court relied upon in its\nearlier ruling, do not mandate a different result. In its prior ruling, the Court noted that Annabi\nestablished \"something akin to a clear statement rule\" that a plea agreement binds only the U.S.\nAttorney's Office for the district in which the plea is entered \"unless it affirmatively appears that\nthe agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" (Dkt. 207 at 4 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at\n672). That interpretive rule, however, only applies in situations where the district bringing the\nsecond prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement\nin the first prosecution. Annabi itself specifically noted that it was not addressing a situation\nwhere the charges in the follow-on prosecution are \"identical to the dismissed charges.\" Annabi,\n771 F.2d at 672. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by the rule in Annabi because Counts Five\nand Six are identical to the charges presented to the SDFL grand jury that were resolved by the\nNPA. When examined without the overlay of Annabi, the terms and the drafting history of the\nNPA indicate that the agreement should be read to preclude other districts, including the USAO-\n6 Accuser-4's statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are\nexculpatory Brady material that the government should immediately produce to the defense. (See Section VII infra).",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ago when the events were still recent.6 Accordingly, because the USAO-SDNY is bound by the\nterms of the NPA as to the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six for the reasons discussed\nbelow, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those counts.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the Court ruled that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges\nin the S1 Indictment (Dkt. 207 at 4-6), the NPA does bind the USAO-SDNY as to the sex\ntrafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six that were added to the S2 Indictment.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (1985) and its progeny, which the Court relied upon in its\nearlier ruling, do not mandate a different result. In its prior ruling, the Court noted that Annabi\nestablished \"something akin to a clear statement rule\" that a plea agreement binds only the U.S.\nAttorney's Office for the district in which the plea is entered \"unless it affirmatively appears that\nthe agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" (Dkt. 207 at 4 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at\n672). That interpretive rule, however, only applies in situations where the district bringing the\nsecond prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement\nin the first prosecution. Annabi itself specifically noted that it was not addressing a situation\nwhere the charges in the follow-on prosecution are \"identical to the dismissed charges.\" Annabi,\n771 F.2d at 672. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by the rule in Annabi because Counts Five\nand Six are identical to the charges presented to the SDFL grand jury that were resolved by the\nNPA. When examined without the overlay of Annabi, the terms and the drafting history of the\nNPA indicate that the agreement should be read to preclude other districts, including the USAO-",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 Accuser-4's statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are\nexculpatory Brady material that the government should immediately produce to the defense. (See Section VII infra).",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "1985"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "Dkt. 207 at 4-6",
      "771 F.2d 670"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}