,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Disagree with this, but it is pretty even handed in exploring the subjects. 1/3
Issues related to double jeopardy in general:
(1) Piece equates a non-pros agreement (in which no charges are filed) with a deferred-pros agreement (in which charges are filed and jeopardy attaches).
(2) Treatment of dual sov doctrine. 2/3
(1) Piece equates a non-pros agreement (in which no charges are filed) with a deferred-pros agreement (in which charges are filed and jeopardy attaches).
(2) Treatment of dual sov doctrine. 2/3
Issues related to this non-pros agreement in particular:
(1) By its terms it binds only SDFL.
(2) Under McCarthy's reasoning the NPA immunizes Epstein for ALL crimes committed from around 2001 to Sep 2007, not just the "including [list of sex crimes]." 3/3
(1) By its terms it binds only SDFL.
(2) Under McCarthy's reasoning the NPA immunizes Epstein for ALL crimes committed from around 2001 to Sep 2007, not just the "including [list of sex crimes]." 3/3
Bottom line, jeopardy never attached for the two federal crimes Epstein is now charged with, which is why double jeopardy isn't even in play here.
NPAs are interpreted according to contract law, and by its express terms, the deal only limited SDFL. End of story. 4/3
NPAs are interpreted according to contract law, and by its express terms, the deal only limited SDFL. End of story. 4/3
Addendum: and even if SDNY were sweating the conspiracy/sex trafficking charges (which I doubt), Epstein helpfully left those hand-labeled CDs lying around.
Justice will be served.
Justice will be served.
