Maxwell v. United States: Petition for Writ of Certiorari (SCOTUS)

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 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128 (305) 379-6667 [email protected] 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