DOJ-OGR-00021834.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page10 of 51 while Maxwell was a beneficiary of the NPA and had standing to enforce its terms, the NPA did not grant immunity to Maxwell in the SDNY. The District Court based its decision on Annabi. The case proceeded to trial and the jury found Maxwell guilty on, inter alia, Count Six. In 2019 the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility investigated whether and to what extent prosecutors in the SDFL improperly resolved the federal investigation of Epstein in 2007-2008 by the very NPA at issue here. Their investigation overlapped the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell in the SDNY and did not involve interviewing any defense counsel. The OPR did not contain a finding as to whether the co-conspirator clause of the NPA bound other districts, although it stated that “witnesses” stated that the clause provided transactional immunity and “found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties or providing transactional immunity.” SA165. PANEL DECISION On appeal, Maxwell argued, inter alia, that the NPA barred her prosecution in the SDNY by its express language. That language read In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any that its review “did not include search terms relevant to the NPA, and the Government has not searched [the SDFL prosecutor’s] inbox for communications relating to the NPA.” DOJ-OGR-00021834