Browse by Document Type
Legal (11,650 documents)
_ Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 1 of 14
pace U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew's P
Case 9:08 a6 b 236K ANH IB ceiRentBegumephfered criled SH DdéRet d7aas/aGief Ibage 13 of
20
been curtailed by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — to discuss the possibility of pursuing federal
criminal c
Case 9:08 a6 b 236K ANH IB deiRentBegumenhfered riled SH DééRet d7aas/aGief IBage 12 of
20
Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing
federal criminal charg
Case 9:08 a6 b 236K ANH IB deiRentbegumephfered criled SH DdééRet d7aas/adiel IBage 11 of
20
Prosecution Agreement] barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had
committed agains
Case 9:08 a6 b 236K ANH IB ceMiRentBegumephfered criled SH DdéRet d7ags/aGief IBage 10 of
20
statutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3283, 3299. Petitioners are free to contact the United
States At
Case 9:08-CAS® 23 KAIMO49OcRMEnt 2deczmMeniched orFteSS DoE o7RAGeR Sf Page 8 of 20
see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d
1164, 1165 (11th Cir.
Case 9:08-CAS® 23 KAIMO498cRMEnt 2d9aczmMeniched orFtesS Meee o7RAGec ef Page 6 of 20
contract.”); Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1975) (“No procedural
principle is more deepl
Case 9:08-CAS® 22 KAIMO49cRMEnt 2deczmMeniched orFtesS DoEe o7RAGedi ef Page 5 of 20
obligations undertaken therein to be set aside.’ See, e. g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257,
262 (1971) (“[W
Case 9:08-CAS® 22 KAIMO498cRMEnt 20eczmMeniched orFtesS Meee o7RAGeCL Ef Page 4 of 20
Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) (“If at any point in the litigation
the plaintiff ce
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page11of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 11 of
1S
IN RE:
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
f
ADDEND
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page6of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 6 of
a 5
sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The Unit
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page7of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of
. mo 15
By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page5of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 5 of
10.
Hl,
15
proposed agreements with the State Attome
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page2of15
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-62 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of \
a ae 15 \
NPA |
INVESTIGATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
IT A
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 14 of 16
the alleged conduct at issue here do not apply retroactively to Mr. Epstein’s case (including a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment and
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 11 of 16
Other than his 2008 guilty plea predicated on conduct substantially overlapping the same
conduct charged here, Mr. Epstein has no crimina
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 9 of 16
Finally, the government fails to consider the doctrine of pre-indictment delay, inasmuch
as the statute of limitations does not fully de
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 5 of 16
Though the Bail Reform Act contains a rebuttable presumption in favor of detention
based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts o
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 3 of 16
in the U.S. Virgin Islands, his principal residence, Florida, and New York. Mr. Epstein has
scrupulously fulfilled his obligations in ev
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 16
Nonetheless, it is fundamental that pretrial detention is reserved for “‘a small but
identifiable group of particularly dangerous defend
Peer ene
oe PERE ate a Wy por errmee ml clge ae e ag
orem cece mone Oe teen an free ee eerie ee
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document5_ Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 1
DOCKET No. 19 @L 190 DEFENDANT Ve sept
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document3 _ Filed 07/08/19 Pageiof1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Unsealing Order
-%~ . 19 Cr. 490
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, |
Defendant.
Upon the application
*
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document2 _ Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 14
Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
va
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv.
JEF
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document2 _ Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 14
individuals-who were less than 18 years old, including but not
limited to Minor Victim-1, as described above, and who were then
caused
ae
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document2 _ Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 14
g. In or about 2005, Employee-2, located in the
Southern District of New York, and on behalf of EPSTEIN, placed
a telephone call to
ae
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document2 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 14
this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage victims for
him to sexually exploit in locations including New York and
Palm Beac
° Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document2 _ Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 14
ORIGINAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~ eee eee Le
: SEALED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; INDICTMENT
~~ V
11
others to prevent any federal prosecution of Epstein’s
circle. Whether or not this was wise, it was the deal,
and Petitioner is entitled to enforce it.
III. This case is an ideal vehicle for reso
10
See, e.g., United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 663
(7th Cir. 2000) (providing that individuals who are not
parties to a plea agreement may enforce it, like other
third-party beneficiaries, whe
6
why specify the district for Epstein? The only logical
inference is that the co-conspirator promise was
meant to reach more broadly, in line with its different
phrasing.” At the very least there is
5
underscore that the plain meaning favors Petitioner.
First, the government notes (as did the Second Circuit)
that the NPA explicitly limited Epstein’s own immunity
to the Southern District of Flori
4
what parties mean when they use the term “the
United States” without further qualification.
II. The Second Circuit’s decision below is wrong
and violates the principles set forth in this
Court’s p
2
This circuit split presents an exceptionally important
question. Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve
nearly every federal case. They routinely include
promises that extend to others—co-cons
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
This case presents a straightforward and important
question about the government’s obligation to honor
its promises in plea and non-prosecution agreements.
The petit
14
Any disparity, however, is of limited importance be-
cause the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under
the control of the parties to the agreement. See Gebbie,
294 F.3d at 550 n.4. According
13
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 456-457 (1995) (Sealia,
J., dissenting) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde
Air Prods. Co., 336 U.S. 271, 275 (1949)).
2. Petitioner nevertheless urges (Pet. 7
10
did not take on some unique broader meaning in the co-
conspirators’ clause. Cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Gar-
ner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
170-173 (2012) (presumption of c
8
United States also agrees that it will not institute crim-
inal char[g]es against any potential co-conspirators of
Epstein, including but not limited to” four of Epstein’s
assistants. Pet. App. 31a
6
Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing
that the coconspirators clause of Epstein’s NPA, see p.
4, supra, barred her prosecution because she was
charged as Epstein’s coconspirator. Pet.
5
States.” Pet. App. 24a-38a. For example, the NPA pro-
vides for “the United States Attorney” to send notice to
Epstein if he “should determine, based on reliable evi-
dence,” that Epstein has viola
3
4-12. In 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl com-
plained to the Palm Beach police after learning that Ep-
stein had paid their daughter for a massage. Pet. App.
94a. The following year, a stat
13
terms that will not bind other federal prosecutors or
agencies without their consent” and “the attorney for the
government should explicitly limit the scope of his/her
agreement to non-prosecution
10
Agreement between the Defendant, the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, and the
Civil Rights Division and is binding only on the parties to
the agreement, supersede all p
12
does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting
authorities, nor does it prohibit any civil or administrative
proceeding against the defendant or any property.” United
States v. Barne
11
the Office [Eastern District of New York USAO], the
NSD [National Security Division of the United States
Department of Justice], and the Defendants, and does
not bind any other division or section
8
2. The Department of Justice knows how to draft plea
agreements to bind only part of the Department in
future prosecutions.
As the trial court correctly noted, “[s]ingle district
plea agreements a
5
rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing,
intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Id. A
defendant, however, cannot have
6
defendant. Even the most ably represented defendant
cannot overcome this unequal balance of power. The
government’s substantial “advantage in bargaining
power” means that ambiguities like this one
7
and on. See Robert H. Jackson, The Federal
Prosecutor, 24 J. AM. JUDICATURE Soc’y 18, 18
(1940).
United States v. Osorto, 445 F. Supp. 3d 103, 109 (N.D.
Cal. 2020).
To permit the United States to
4
“The reality is that plea bargains have become so
central to the administration of the criminal justice
system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the
plea bargain process, responsibiliti