mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004721.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "295",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 26\ndendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Whatever Epstein's rights and obligations were under the NPA, including his obligation to plead guilty to two state solicitation offenses, the NPA is simply an agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. The USAO-SDFL's agreement to decline to prosecute other offenses is not an adjudication of any facts that goes to the merits of those offenses. Nor could it be: neither Epstein nor the defendant was charged with those offenses, and the NPA was never put before a judge who could engage in fact-finding or even so-order the agreement. There is no sense in which the defendant risked conviction or was ever in genuine jeopardy. See Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84.\nThis point is only underscored by United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979), on which the defendant relies. In that case, two defendants, Jesus and Rosalinda Losada, were prosecuted for a 1974 conspiracy to distribute cocaine, resulting in a guilty plea for Jesus and, \"as part of his plea bargaining agreement, the dismissal of charges against\" Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The two were later charged as part of another cocaine conspiracy. Id. at 607. The defendants argued that the new prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause as to both of them, and the plea agreement as to Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The Second Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of its other holdings narrowing the charged conspiracy. It added that \"[i]f Jesus's earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against Rosalinda, the instant prosecution of Rosalinda will also be barred.\" Id. at 638. That is, if double jeopardy barred re-prosecution of Jesus, the prosecution of Rosalinda was barred because of the plea agreement. Accordingly, when the district court later dismissed the count against Jesus on double jeopardy grounds, it dismissed the count against Rosalinda \"because of the government's\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00004721",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 26",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Whatever Epstein's rights and obligations were under the NPA, including his obligation to plead guilty to two state solicitation offenses, the NPA is simply an agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. The USAO-SDFL's agreement to decline to prosecute other offenses is not an adjudication of any facts that goes to the merits of those offenses. Nor could it be: neither Epstein nor the defendant was charged with those offenses, and the NPA was never put before a judge who could engage in fact-finding or even so-order the agreement. There is no sense in which the defendant risked conviction or was ever in genuine jeopardy. See Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84.\nThis point is only underscored by United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979), on which the defendant relies. In that case, two defendants, Jesus and Rosalinda Losada, were prosecuted for a 1974 conspiracy to distribute cocaine, resulting in a guilty plea for Jesus and, \"as part of his plea bargaining agreement, the dismissal of charges against\" Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The two were later charged as part of another cocaine conspiracy. Id. at 607. The defendants argued that the new prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause as to both of them, and the plea agreement as to Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The Second Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of its other holdings narrowing the charged conspiracy. It added that \"[i]f Jesus's earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against Rosalinda, the instant prosecution of Rosalinda will also be barred.\" Id. at 638. That is, if double jeopardy barred re-prosecution of Jesus, the prosecution of Rosalinda was barred because of the plea agreement. Accordingly, when the district court later dismissed the count against Jesus on double jeopardy grounds, it dismissed the count against Rosalinda \"because of the government's",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004721",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Jesus",
      "Rosalinda Losada"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "1974",
      "1979"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 295",
      "503 F.3d",
      "609 F.2d 603",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004721"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Epstein. The text discusses the Double Jeopardy Clause and its application to the case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}