mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002596.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 24 of 38\noffenses at issue will be \"instituted in this District.\" NPA at 2 (emphases added). In addition, the use of the term \"the United States\" in the co-conspirator immunity provision contrasts with the use elsewhere in the agreement of various terms that refer more specifically to the USAO-SDFL. When the government wanted a provision of the NPA to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it knew how to do so; where it chose not to do so, a different intent is demonstrated.\nIndeed, the omission of express language limiting the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL was contrary to Justice Department policy. The Justice Manual (formerly the U.S. Attorneys' Manual) expressly provides, and provided at the time the NPA was executed, that \"if practicable, the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of his/her [non-prosecution] agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district.\" Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630. The government's deviation from a policy of which it was obviously aware—for offenses that, by their nature, involve interstate travel and are susceptible to prosecution in multiple districts—cannot be regarded as an oversight, particularly where the policy was followed elsewhere in the NPA with respect to the immunity provision as to Epstein.\n2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis.\nIn support of its position, the government has cited United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985). Reply Mem. at 5. But Annabi does not support the government's position. In fact, to the extent it is relevant here, it supports dismissal.\nIn Annabi, the government, following a guilty plea to one count of a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York, agreed to move to dismiss the two open counts. Unlike here, there was no written agreement; rather, the prosecutor stated on the record at the time of the plea that \"the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant.\" 771 F.2d at 671. The defendants\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00002596",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 24 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "offenses at issue will be \"instituted in this District.\" NPA at 2 (emphases added). In addition, the use of the term \"the United States\" in the co-conspirator immunity provision contrasts with the use elsewhere in the agreement of various terms that refer more specifically to the USAO-SDFL. When the government wanted a provision of the NPA to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it knew how to do so; where it chose not to do so, a different intent is demonstrated.\nIndeed, the omission of express language limiting the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL was contrary to Justice Department policy. The Justice Manual (formerly the U.S. Attorneys' Manual) expressly provides, and provided at the time the NPA was executed, that \"if practicable, the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of his/her [non-prosecution] agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district.\" Justice Manual, Comment to § 9-27.630. The government's deviation from a policy of which it was obviously aware—for offenses that, by their nature, involve interstate travel and are susceptible to prosecution in multiple districts—cannot be regarded as an oversight, particularly where the policy was followed elsewhere in the NPA with respect to the immunity provision as to Epstein.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis.\nIn support of its position, the government has cited United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985). Reply Mem. at 5. But Annabi does not support the government's position. In fact, to the extent it is relevant here, it supports dismissal.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Annabi, the government, following a guilty plea to one count of a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York, agreed to move to dismiss the two open counts. Unlike here, there was no written agreement; rather, the prosecutor stated on the record at the time of the plea that \"the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant.\" 771 F.2d at 671. The defendants",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002596",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Justice Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eastern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "1985"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "142",
      "771 F.2d 670",
      "9-27.630",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002596"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 24 of 38."
}