DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
731 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
731 KB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a legal filing from May 25, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the USAO-SDFL does not protect the current defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause because the NPA was merely an agreement between parties, not a judicial adjudication of facts. The text cites *United States v. Cambindo Valencia* to distinguish how plea agreements affecting third parties (like Jesus and Rosalinda Losada) operate legally.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of NPA |
Mentioned regarding his rights and obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and his obligation to plead ...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number context), arguing regarding Double Jeopardy and reliance on Epstein...
|
| Jesus Losada | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in the analysis of United States v. Cambindo Valencia regarding plea agreements and double jeopardy.
|
| Rosalinda Losada | Defendant in cited case |
Mentioned in the analysis of United States v. Cambindo Valencia regarding dismissal of charges based on a co-defendan...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; party to the NPA with Epstein.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals mentioned in the citation of United States v. Cambindo Valencia.
|
Timeline (2 events)
1974
Conspiracy to distribute cocaine mentioned in the cited case United States v. Cambindo Valencia.
Unknown (Case History)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the USAO-SDFL.
|
Relationships (2)
the NPA is simply an agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL
two defendants, Jesus and Rosalinda Losada, were prosecuted for a 1974 conspiracy
Key Quotes (4)
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
Quote #2
"There is no sense in which the defendant risked conviction or was ever in genuine jeopardy."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
Quote #3
"if double jeopardy barred re-prosecution of Jesus, the prosecution of Rosalinda was barred because of the plea agreement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,128 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 26
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.
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.
This 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
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
10
DOJ-OGR-00004721
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document