mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021097.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "50",
    "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, Page50 of 113\nits face immunizes assistants who worked for Epstein out of his New York office.\nFor example, Leslie Groff worked for Epstein out of the New York Office. Tr. 201;\nSee Doe v. Indyke et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08469-PKC, Dkt No. 1 (S.D. Fla.).\nMoreover, a promise to bind other districts need not be express; rather, it can\nbe inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor, see United\nStates v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139, 1153-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97\nS.Ct. 384 (1976). United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A\npromise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between\ndefendant and prosecutor.”) One relevant factor in this analysis is the extent to\nwhich the USAO negotiating the plea agreement acted on its own, as opposed to\ninvolving other USAOs or other offices within the Department of Justice. Cf., e.g.,\nUnited States v. D’Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that\ndefendant “offers no meaningful support for his claim that he ‘reasonably\nunderstood’ the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District. . . . He\ndoes not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or\ninvolved in the plea negotiations.”); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851,\n854 (E.D.N.Y.) (“defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge\nof the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the\nCentral District plea was being negotiated. . . . The Central District, unaware of\ndefendants' potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have\n35\nDOJ-OGR-00021097",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page50 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "its face immunizes assistants who worked for Epstein out of his New York office.\nFor example, Leslie Groff worked for Epstein out of the New York Office. Tr. 201;\nSee Doe v. Indyke et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08469-PKC, Dkt No. 1 (S.D. Fla.).\nMoreover, a promise to bind other districts need not be express; rather, it can\nbe inferred from the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor, see United\nStates v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139, 1153-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 960, 97\nS.Ct. 384 (1976). United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A\npromise to bind other districts can be inferred from the negotiations between\ndefendant and prosecutor.”) One relevant factor in this analysis is the extent to\nwhich the USAO negotiating the plea agreement acted on its own, as opposed to\ninvolving other USAOs or other offices within the Department of Justice. Cf., e.g.,\nUnited States v. D’Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that\ndefendant “offers no meaningful support for his claim that he ‘reasonably\nunderstood’ the Agreement to bar subsequent prosecutions in this District. . . . He\ndoes not claim, for example, that the SDNY USAO was in any way consulted or\ninvolved in the plea negotiations.”); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851,\n854 (E.D.N.Y.) (“defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge\nof the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the\nCentral District plea was being negotiated. . . . The Central District, unaware of\ndefendants' potential criminal liability in the Eastern District, could not have",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021097",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Leslie Groff",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "USAO",
      "SDNY USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida",
      "Eastern District",
      "Central District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1976",
      "1986",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "Case No. 1:21-cv-08469-PKC",
      "Dkt No. 1",
      "544 F.2d 1139",
      "429 U.S. 960",
      "801 F.2d 624",
      "734 F. Supp. 2d 321",
      "688 F. Supp. 851",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021097"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses legal precedents and the implications of plea agreements on subsequent prosecutions. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}