mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004284.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "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 19 of 32\n\nagreement bind the Western District of Pennsylvania and bar it from charging the same offenses in a subsequent prosecution? The Court held that it did:\n\nWe hold, therefore, that when a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of “the United States” or “the Government” in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants.\n\nId. at 550 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an Assistant United States Attorney in one district will bind an Assistant United States Attorney in another district.”); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986) (“It is the Government at large—not just specific United States Attorneys or United States ‘Districts’—that is bound by plea agreements negotiated by agents of Government.”).\n\nThis case presents the exact set of circumstances carved out by Annabi and directly addressed in Gebbie. Here, the co-conspirator provision of the NPA provides that if Epstein abides by the terms of the agreement, “the United States” will not institute any criminal charges “against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” which immunizes Ms. Maxwell for the offenses covered by the NPA. (Ex. B at 5 of 7; see also Dkt. 207 at 7). As set forth above, Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are based on the same alleged conduct involving Accuser-4 from 2001-2004 that was presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for several overt acts of a conspiracy charge and a substantive sex trafficking offense against Epstein in the proposed SDFL indictment. The prosecution of those offenses was abandoned as part of the bargain struck in the NPA, which Epstein fully performed and from which Accuser-4 benefitted. In sum, the USAO-SDNY is trying to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in Counts Five and Six for the identical charges that were resolved by the NPA. In these circumstances, Annabi and its\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004284",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 19 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "agreement bind the Western District of Pennsylvania and bar it from charging the same offenses in a subsequent prosecution? The Court held that it did:\n\nWe hold, therefore, that when a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of “the United States” or “the Government” in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants.\n\nId. at 550 (emphasis added); see also United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an Assistant United States Attorney in one district will bind an Assistant United States Attorney in another district.”); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986) (“It is the Government at large—not just specific United States Attorneys or United States ‘Districts’—that is bound by plea agreements negotiated by agents of Government.”).\n\nThis case presents the exact set of circumstances carved out by Annabi and directly addressed in Gebbie. Here, the co-conspirator provision of the NPA provides that if Epstein abides by the terms of the agreement, “the United States” will not institute any criminal charges “against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” which immunizes Ms. Maxwell for the offenses covered by the NPA. (Ex. B at 5 of 7; see also Dkt. 207 at 7). As set forth above, Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment are based on the same alleged conduct involving Accuser-4 from 2001-2004 that was presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for several overt acts of a conspiracy charge and a substantive sex trafficking offense against Epstein in the proposed SDFL indictment. The prosecution of those offenses was abandoned as part of the bargain struck in the NPA, which Epstein fully performed and from which Accuser-4 benefitted. In sum, the USAO-SDNY is trying to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in Counts Five and Six for the identical charges that were resolved by the NPA. In these circumstances, Annabi and its",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004284",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Accuser-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney",
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Pennsylvania",
      "SDNY",
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "2001-2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Ex. B",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004284"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 19 of 32."
}