EPSTEIN
page 1 / 51 . OCR, unverified
Court Records Maxwell v. United States,
==================== DOCUMENT: Court Records__Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073 (U.S. 2025) (petition for cert.)__20250424150144637_24-__PetitionForWritOfCertiorari.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: Court RecordsMaxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073 (U.S. 2025) (petition for cert.)
METADATA_FILENAME: 20250424150144637_24-__PetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf
----------------------------------------
No. 24-____
WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
————
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
————
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
————
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
————
DAVID OSCAR MARKUS
Counsel of Record
MARKUS/MOSS PLLC
N.W. Third Street
Penthouse One
Miami, FL 33128
(305) 379-6667
dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Counsel for Petitioner
April 10, 2025
(i)
QUESTION PRESENTED
This Court long has recognized that “when 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 (1971). And, of course, it is well settled that
plea agreements and non-prosecution agreements are
interpreted using ordinary principles of contract
construction, requiring that the plain language of the
agreement must govern interpretation and that
ambiguities must be resolved against the Government.
Nevertheless, Circuits are split on whether promises
in a plea agreement in one district on behalf of the
“United States” or the “Government” binds the
Government in other districts.
The question presented here is:
Under Santobello and common principles of contract
interpretation, does a promise on behalf of the
“United States” or the “Government” that is made by a
United States Attorney in one district bind federal
prosecutors in other districts?
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Ghislaine Maxwell was the Defendant in
the district court and the Appellant in the Second
Circuit. Respondent is the United States.
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
This case arises from the following proceedings:
• United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d
Cir. 2024), reh’g denied, November 25, 2024.
Judgment entered September 17, 2024.
• United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299
(S.D.N.Y. 2021).
(iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................
i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ..................
ii
RELATED PROCEEDINGS ...............................
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................
vi
OPINIONS BELOW ............................................
JURISDICTION ..................................................
CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .......................
A.
Entry of the Non-Prosecution Agree-
ment ...........................................................
B.
Criminal Proceedings in the District
Court ..........................................................
C.
The Second Circuit’s Decision ..................
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ..
I.
The circuits are split as to whether a
promise on behalf of the “United States”
or the “Government” by a United States
Attorney’s office in one district is binding
upon United States Attorney’s offices in
other districts ............................................
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
A. The Third, Fourth, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits
have
faithfully
applied
Santobello’s instruction that promises
in plea agreements must be binding
on the government, applying basic
principles of contract law to find that
obligations entered into on behalf of
the
“United
States”
or
the
“Government” apply to the federal
government throughout the nation ....
B. The Second and the Seventh Circuits
apply the opposite presumption. They
refuse to enforce a promise made on
behalf of the “United States” or “the
Government”
except
against
the
particular United States Attorney’s
office
which
entered
into
the
agreement, unless the agreement
expressly reiterates that the term
“United States” does in fact mean the
entire country as a whole ....................
II.
The Second Circuit’s decision below is
wrong and violates the principles set
forth in this Court’s prior opinions ..........
A. Both Annabi and the opinion below
were
wrongly
decided
under
Santobello and Giglio ..........................
B. Ordinary
principles
of
contract
interpretation compel Annabi and
Maxwell to be reversed ........................
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
C. The available evidence suggests that