Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 731.3 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.9%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 _ Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 26 defendant under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Whatever Epstein’s rights and obligations were under the NPA, including his obligation to plead guilty to two state solicitation offenses, the NPA is simply an agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. The USAO-SDFL’s agreement to decline to prosecute other offenses is not an adjudication of any facts that goes to the merits of those offenses. Nor could it be: neither Epstein nor the defendant was charged with those offenses, and the NPA was never put before a judge who could engage in fact-finding or even so-order the agreement. There is no sense in which the defendant risked conviction or was ever in genuine jeopardy. See Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84. This point is only underscored by United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979), on which the defendant relies. In that case, two defendants, Jesus and Rosalinda Losada, were prosecuted for a 1974 conspiracy to distribute cocaine, resulting in a guilty plea for Jesus and, “as part of his plea bargaining agreement, the dismissal of charges against” Rosalinda. Id. at 637. The two were later charged as part of another cocaine conspiracy. Jd. at 607. The defendants argued that the new prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause as to both of them, and the plea agreement as to Rosalinda. /d. at 637. The Second Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of its other holdings narrowing the charged conspiracy. It added that “[i]f Jesus’s earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against Rosalinda, the instant prosecution of Rosalinda will also be barred.” Jd. at 638. That is, if double jeopardy barred re-prosecution of Jesus, the prosecution of Rosalinda was barred because of the plea agreement. Accordingly, when the district court later dismissed the count against Jesus on double jeopardy grounds, it dismissed the count against Rosalinda “because of the government’s 10 DOJ-OGR-00004721

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00004721.jpg
File Size 731.3 KB
OCR Confidence 94.9%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,131 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 16:52:12.942927