DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
599 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
599 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the government has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding Ms. Maxwell's flight risk, citing Supreme Court precedent on bail. It references the case of United States v. Bodmer, where a defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's speculative arguments. The document concludes that Ms. Maxwell should receive similar treatment to other defendants granted bond.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the current bail discussion, whose presence the government must assure.
|
| Bodmer | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Bodmer, who was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Supreme Court | Government agency |
Cited as the authority that explained the purpose of bail.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting entity in the current case and the cited Bodmer case, challenged to prove flight risk.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Plaintiff in the cited case United States v. Bodmer.
|
| DOJ-OGR | Government agency |
Part of the document identifier, likely referring to the Department of Justice, Office of Government Relations.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2004-01-28
The case of United States v. Bodmer, where the defendant was released to home confinement with GPS monitoring despite the government's argument based on speculation.
S.D.N.Y.
Discussion and challenge regarding Ms. Maxwell's bail conditions and the government's burden of proof concerning flight risk.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Refers to the Southern District of New York, where the United States v. Bodmer case was heard.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"the Government has admitted that its only interest is in preventing flight, bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more."Source
— The Supreme Court
(Explaining the fundamental principle of bail.)
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
Quote #1
"no conditions"Source
— Government (as quoted by the document)
(Referring to the government's burden of proving that no conditions exist to assure Ms. Maxwell's presence.)
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
Quote #2
"in large part, on speculation,"Source
— Court (in United States v. Bodmer)
(Describing the basis of the government's argument in the Bodmer case.)
DOJ-OGR-00019857.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,217 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page29 of 31
The Supreme Court has explained that when “the Government
has admitted that its only interest is in preventing flight, bail must be
set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.”
The government simply has not come close to satisfying its heavy
burden of proving that “no conditions” exist that will reasonably assure
Ms. Maxwell’s presence. It has not articulated with any evidence, let
alone specific and credible evidence, how Ms. Maxwell could manage to
flee under the proposed bail conditions. Speculation is not permitted.
United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2004) (where government’s argument that no
conditions could assure defendant’s future presence was based, “in large
part, on speculation,” defendant was released to home confinement with
GPS monitoring). We challenge the government to point to a high
profile defendant who in the recent past has 1) fled and 2) gotten away
with it.
The reality is that defendants with far greater likelihood of
conviction than Ms. Maxwell are granted bond and appear in court. Ms.
Maxwell should not be treated differently.
has admitted that its only interest is in preventing flight, bail must be
set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.”
The government simply has not come close to satisfying its heavy
burden of proving that “no conditions” exist that will reasonably assure
Ms. Maxwell’s presence. It has not articulated with any evidence, let
alone specific and credible evidence, how Ms. Maxwell could manage to
flee under the proposed bail conditions. Speculation is not permitted.
United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2004) (where government’s argument that no
conditions could assure defendant’s future presence was based, “in large
part, on speculation,” defendant was released to home confinement with
GPS monitoring). We challenge the government to point to a high
profile defendant who in the recent past has 1) fled and 2) gotten away
with it.
The reality is that defendants with far greater likelihood of
conviction than Ms. Maxwell are granted bond and appear in court. Ms.
Maxwell should not be treated differently.
27
DOJ-OGR-00019857
DOJ-OGR-00019857
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document