DOJ-OGR-00000250.tif

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 a textual ambi- guity, and under Santobello and the contract inter- pretation principle contra proferentum, such ambigu- ity must be construed against the government as the drafter and promisor. See, e.g., United States v. Carmichael, 216 F.8d 224 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[Wle ‘construe plea agreements strictly against the Govern- ment.”) (internal citation omitted); OPR report (“OPR”) at 80, 166 (confirming that AUSA wrote the specific language in question). Under any normal reading of this contract, then, no federal charges can be brought against any co-conspirator in any district in the United States. Reading the NPA “as a whole” means giving effect to the deliberate difference in phrasing between the Epstein-focused clause and the co-conspirator clause.’ * It is not, as the government contends, “extremely strange” for Epstein to have secured broader immunity for his co-conspirators than he was getting for himself, Opp.9. Defendants always try to get as many benefits in a plea agreement as they can — here, Epstein was able to obtain an additional benefit for his co- conspirators that he was unable to secure for himself, no doubt because the government attorneys “wouldn’t have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.” OPR:70; see also OPR:80, 168. Epstein “wanted to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened.” OPR:167 (internal quotation omitted). In addition, Epstein was concerned that if a co-conspirator was charged elsewhere, he might be called to testify, opening him up to potential charges in a different part of the country. This was antithetical to the global resolution Epstein sought. 3 The government is right about one thing: the scope of a particular agreement is under the control of the parties. Opp.14. As the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers observes in its amicus brief, federal prosecutors know well how to draft DOJ-OGR-00000250