Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00004280.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 728.6 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.2%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 32 ago when the events were still recent.° Accordingly, because the USAO-SDNY is bound by the terms of the NPA as to the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six for the reasons discussed below, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those counts. B. The NPA Binds the Southern District of New York as to Counts Five and Six. Although the Court ruled that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges in the S1 Indictment (Dkt. 207 at 4-6), the NPA does bind the USAO-SDNY as to the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six that were added to the S2 Indictment. United States vy. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (1985) and its progeny, which the Court relied upon in its earlier ruling, do not mandate a different result. In its prior ruling, the Court noted that Annabi established “something akin to a clear statement rule” that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attormey’s Office for the district in which the plea is entered “unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” (Dkt. 207 at 4 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672). That interpretive rule, however, only applies in situations where the district bringing the second prosecution charges offenses different from the offenses resolved by the plea agreement in the first prosecution. Annabi itself specifically noted that it was not addressing a situation where the charges in the follow-on prosecution are “identical to the dismissed charges.” Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. Accordingly, the Court is not bound by the rule in Annabi because Counts Five and Six are identical to the charges presented to the SDFL grand jury that were resolved by the NPA. When examined without the overlay of Annabi, the terms and the drafting history of the NPA indicate that the agreement should be read to preclude other districts, including the USAO- ° Accuser-4’s statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are exculpatory Brady material that the government should immediately produce to the defense. (See Section VII infra). 11 DOJ-OGR-00004280

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00004280.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00004280.jpg
File Size 728.6 KB
OCR Confidence 94.2%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,159 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 16:45:56.941393