← Back to home

Document 20-2200330-PAE

AI Analysis

Summary: The document discusses Maxwell's appeal of her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, arguing that the NPA between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution. The court rejects this argument, holding that the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. The court reviews the denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment de novo.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it establishes the court's reasoning on whether Maxwell can claim immunity from prosecution under the NPA between Epstein and USAO-SDFL.
Key Topics: Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY Third-party beneficiary rights under the NPA
Key People:
  • Maxwell - Defendant in the case
  • Epstein - Individual who entered into the NPA with USAO-SDFL

Full Text

Case 20-2200330-PAE Document 178 Filed 02/12/21 Page 23 of 26 District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9 In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which "the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. It is well established in our Circuit that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement 9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178. 9 DOJ-OGR-00014859