An attorney argues against a prolonged hearing on their client's assets for bail purposes, citing it as a tactic for detention. The attorney informs the court of their intent to file significant motions that could challenge the indictment itself.
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020. An unidentified attorney argues before a judge during a bail hearing, contending that a lengthy examination of their client's assets is unnecessary and intended only for detention, citing a precedent from a Judge Raggi. The attorney also signals their intent to file significant legal motions that could challenge the indictment's validity, which they argue the court should consider when weighing the evidence for bail purposes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein communication