DOJ-OGR-00021684.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page37 of 93 24 Next, Maxwell argues that this Court should disre- gard its own precedents and instead apply Eleventh Circuit law because “the NPA was negotiated in Flor- ida, with Southern District of Florida prosecutors, in exchange for Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty in Florida state court.” (Br.25). But this Court has con- sistently applied Annabi even when considering plea agreements from out-of-Circuit districts. Prisco, 391 F. App’*x at 921 (District of New Jersey); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App’x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia); Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x at 270 (District of New Mexico). United States v. Brown, No. 99- 1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. 2004) (Southern District of Florida).4 These decisions are consistent with choice-of-law principles in criminal cases, where “[t]he governing law is always that of the forum state, if the forum court has jurisdiction.” Amer- ican Conflicts Law 375 (5th ed. 2021); see 2 Attorney- Client Privilege in the United States § 12:10 (“Choice of law scholars have long recognized that criminal law is peculiarly local in nature, and it is settled that, in criminal prosecutions, the court will routinely apply the substantive law of the forum.”); American Conflicts Law 390 (“[A]s a sort of corollary to the local nature of 4 While these are nonprecedential decisions, this Court does not lightly depart from prior panels’ sum- mary orders. United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[D]enying summary orders preceden- tial effect does not mean that the court considers itself free to rule differently in similar cases.”). DOJ-OGR-00021684