Epstein Files

DOJ-OGR-00004870.pdf

epstein-pdf-nov2025 PDF 728.9 KB Feb 4, 2026
--- Page 1 --- **Document Header:** Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 58 of 80 **Text:** rather than on contract law principles. Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980), is instructive. In that case, the parties had reached a tentative, preliminary plea agreement. But before the defendant could formally enter the plea, the prosecutor attempted to add another term to the deal. Id. at 361-62. The defendant rejected the new term and sought specific performance of the original, unconsummated agreement. Id. The district court denied his request. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the agreement was not formalized and accepted by the court, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance under a contract law theory. Id. at 362. The appellate court noted that, absent detrimental reliance upon the prosecutor's offer, a defendant's due process rights were sufficiently safeguarded by his right to a jury trial. Id. at 365. The court cautioned, however, that, by contrast, when a "defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees." Id.22 Considered together, these authorities obligate courts to hold prosecutors to their word, to enforce promises, to ensure that defendants' decisions are made with a full understanding of the circumstances, and to prevent fraudulent inducements of waivers of one or more constitutional rights. Prosecutors can be bound by their assurances or decisions under principles of contract law or by application of the fundamental fairness considerations that inform and undergird the due process of law. The law is clear that, based upon their unique role in the criminal justice system, prosecutors generally are bound by their assurances, particularly when defendants rely to their detriment upon those guarantees. Ultimately, the court did not grant the defendant relief under a theory of detrimental reliance because there was "no claim in this case of such reliance." Scotland, 614 F.2d at 365. [J-100-2020] - 57 DOJ-OGR-00004870

Entities

0 total entities mentioned

No entities found in this document

Document Metadata

Document ID
17c37053-797b-4f43-8485-a809d7de6610
Storage Key
epstein-pdf-nov2025/DOJ-OGR-00004870.pdf
Created
Feb 4, 2026