mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004713.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "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 6 of 26\n\nas multiplicious remains premature. Sixth, a bill of particulars is not warranted, especially when both the speaking indictment and discovery in this case provide ample details regarding the charged offenses. Seventh, the defendant's request for immediate disclosure of impeachment material regarding one of the Government's witnesses should be denied consistent with this Court's prior conclusion that such material may be provided closer to trial.\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Bar the Superseding Indictment\n\nIn an Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2021, the Court denied the defendant's previous motion to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the \"USAO-SDFL\"). The Court concluded, among other things, that \"under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.\" (Apr. Op. at 3). In reaching this conclusion, the Court followed United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), which held that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" (Apr. Op. at 4). The defendant now moves to dismiss again based on the NPA. The bulk of the defendant's motion discusses the similarity between the additional charges in the S2 Indictment and the crimes enumerated in the immunity provisions of the NPA. But it does not matter what—or whom—the NPA purports to immunize, since the Court has already concluded that, under Annabi, the NPA does not bind this District.\n\nThe defendant cannot clear the initial hurdle of establishing that the NPA applies in this District and, accordingly, the motion should be denied. In an effort to relitigate the Court's April Opinion, the defendant now claims that the rule of Annabi \"only applies in situations where the\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004713",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 6 of 26",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "as multiplicious remains premature. Sixth, a bill of particulars is not warranted, especially when both the speaking indictment and discovery in this case provide ample details regarding the charged offenses. Seventh, the defendant's request for immediate disclosure of impeachment material regarding one of the Government's witnesses should be denied consistent with this Court's prior conclusion that such material may be provided closer to trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Does Not Bar the Superseding Indictment",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In an Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2021, the Court denied the defendant's previous motion to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the \"USAO-SDFL\"). The Court concluded, among other things, that \"under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.\" (Apr. Op. at 3). In reaching this conclusion, the Court followed United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), which held that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" (Apr. Op. at 4). The defendant now moves to dismiss again based on the NPA. The bulk of the defendant's motion discusses the similarity between the additional charges in the S2 Indictment and the crimes enumerated in the immunity provisions of the NPA. But it does not matter what—or whom—the NPA purports to immunize, since the Court has already concluded that, under Annabi, the NPA does not bind this District.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant cannot clear the initial hurdle of establishing that the NPA applies in this District and, accordingly, the motion should be denied. In an effort to relitigate the Court's April Opinion, the defendant now claims that the rule of Annabi \"only applies in situations where the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004713",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
      "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 16, 2021",
      "2007",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 295",
      "771 F.2d 670",
      "672 (2d Cir. 1985)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. [defendant's name]. The document discusses the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The court has previously denied the defendant's motion, and the defendant is now attempting to relitigate the issue."
}