DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
717 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
717 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is binding only on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and not on other districts, such as the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY). The author contends that the defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support the claim that the NPA binds other districts, dismissing a privilege log from an investigation into Epstein as irrelevant to this specific point. The document concludes that the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law because the text of the NPA does not support a broader application.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Annabi |
Mentioned in a legal citation: "under Annabi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL".
|
|
| Russo |
Mentioned in a legal citation: "Russo, 801 F.2d at 626".
|
|
| Epstein | Subject of investigation |
Mentioned in the context of a lawsuit filed by his victims and a prior investigation where the USAO-SDFL allegedly ma...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which is argued to be the only office bound by the N...
|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which the defendant claims is bound by the NPA, an ...
|
| FBI | government agency |
Mentioned as having agents who worked with the USAO-SDFL to interview witnesses during an investigation.
|
| U.S. Attorney’s offices | government agency |
Referenced generally as other districts that the defendant claims are bound by the NPA.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as one of the states where FBI agents and the USAO-SDFL interviewed witnesses during their investigation.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein something regarding the scope of the NPA during a prior investigation.
Key Quotes (3)
"global"Source
— defendant (referenced)
(The defendant argues that the word “global” in the NPA provision means that the NPA binds the entire federal government.)
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
Quote #1
"federal liability"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
Quote #2
"state . . . liability"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002970.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,099 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 36 of 239
prosecutions by those two offices, and only those two offices.⁴ The defendant therefore cannot argue that the word “global” in this provision means that the NPA binds the entire federal government.
In sum, the defendant points to nothing in the text of the NPA that could possibly be construed to bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annabi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant’s motion fails as a matter of law.
2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts
Although a defendant may offer evidence that the negotiations between the prosecutor and defendant contained a promise to bind other districts, Russo, 801 F.2d at 626, the defendant has failed to do so here. The defendant’s motion is replete with bare assertions and conclusory allegations, but it fails to point to any evidence that the NPA binds the USAO-SDNY.
The lone document the defendant offers in support of her motion is a privilege log filed by the USAO-SDFL in connection with a lawsuit filed by Epstein’s victims. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). The log reflects that the FBI agents working with the USAO-SDFL interviewed witnesses in other states—including New York—during their investigation. That is entirely unremarkable, since federal investigations frequently involve gathering evidence in other states. This does not in any way establish the substantive involvement of any other districts in the prior investigation, let alone that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that the U.S. Attorney’s offices in those states would be bound by the NPA.
⁴ Interpreting the term “federal liability” in this provision could not be read to encompass all U.S. Attorney’s offices without also interpreting its neighboring term, “state . . . liability,” to refer to every state prosecutor’s office in all fifty states. The USAO-SDFL clearly did not—and could not—make such a broad promise.
9
DOJ-OGR-00002970
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document