mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021091.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "44",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page44 of 113\n\nanticipate, disregard the NPA's carefully-crafted text for the Government's benefit, and violate settled canons within the Eleventh Circuit (and every other circuit) for construing such agreements. See Jefferies, 908 F.2d at 1523; Rowe, 676 F.2d at 526 n.4.\n\nThe Government will likely respond that, on matters of federal common law, this Court should apply the lex fora without regard to regional circuit differences. But in criminal cases, differences in circuit law can affect the Constitution's guarantees. This principle is illustrated by the inter-circuit exclusionary rule: where a search or seizure is executed in one circuit but the defendant is charged in a different circuit, courts will look to the law of the circuit where the search or seizure happened to \"ensure[] that the proper level of deterrence is maintained in the locale where the violation occurred.\" U.S. v. Restrepo, 890 F.Supp. 180, 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Weinstein, J.); see also U.S. v. Ozuna, 129 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2001); U.S. v. Longo, 70 F.Supp.2d 225, 261 (W.D.N.Y. 1999); U.S. v. Gerena, 667 F.Supp. 911 (D. Conn. 1987). This rule prevents the Government from parachuting into a new circuit and prosecuting a case it would not otherwise have been able to bring. That rationale applies with equal force here. Like the Fourth Amendment in the search and seizure context, the Fifth Amendment requires courts to hold the Government to a minimum standard of conduct in the plea-bargaining process. See U.S. v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1990)\n\n29\nDOJ-OGR-00021091",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page44 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "anticipate, disregard the NPA's carefully-crafted text for the Government's benefit, and violate settled canons within the Eleventh Circuit (and every other circuit) for construing such agreements. See Jefferies, 908 F.2d at 1523; Rowe, 676 F.2d at 526 n.4.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government will likely respond that, on matters of federal common law, this Court should apply the lex fora without regard to regional circuit differences. But in criminal cases, differences in circuit law can affect the Constitution's guarantees. This principle is illustrated by the inter-circuit exclusionary rule: where a search or seizure is executed in one circuit but the defendant is charged in a different circuit, courts will look to the law of the circuit where the search or seizure happened to \"ensure[] that the proper level of deterrence is maintained in the locale where the violation occurred.\" U.S. v. Restrepo, 890 F.Supp. 180, 191 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (Weinstein, J.); see also U.S. v. Ozuna, 129 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2001); U.S. v. Longo, 70 F.Supp.2d 225, 261 (W.D.N.Y. 1999); U.S. v. Gerena, 667 F.Supp. 911 (D. Conn. 1987). This rule prevents the Government from parachuting into a new circuit and prosecuting a case it would not otherwise have been able to bring. That rationale applies with equal force here. Like the Fourth Amendment in the search and seizure context, the Fifth Amendment requires courts to hold the Government to a minimum standard of conduct in the plea-bargaining process. See U.S. v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1990)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021091",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Weinstein, J."
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eleventh Circuit",
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D. Fla.",
      "W.D.N.Y.",
      "D. Conn.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1995",
      "2001",
      "1999",
      "1987",
      "1990"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021091"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}