DOJ-OGR-00002589.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 38 ES . : As the NPA reflects, Epstein’s objective in negotiating the NPA was to obtain a global resolution that would, among other things, provide maximum protection for any alleged co- conspirators, in significant part to minimize the likelihood that Epstein could be subpoenaed as a potential witness and have to testify under oath. NPA at 2 (noting that Epstein “seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability”). The NPA makes clear that its identification of four “potential co-conspirators” by name—Kellen, Ross, Groff, and Marcinkova—was not intended to limit the immunity provision to those four individuals (“but not limited to”), and we ARGUMENT The Supreme Court has long recognized the enforceability of plea agreements. “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). While plea agreements are interpreted under basic principles of contract law, the Second Circuit has noted that “plea agreements . . . are unique contracts in which special due process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural safeguards obtain.” United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Mozer, 828 F. Supp. 208, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“[A] prosecutor entering into a plea bargain 12 DOJ-OGR-00002589