DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
751 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
751 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the reconsideration of a bail decision for a defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It cites several legal precedents (United States v. Lee, Bradshaw, Rowe, and Petrov) to establish that the Court has the inherent authority to reopen a bail hearing, especially when new evidence is presented. The filing asserts that Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial new information, including over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government, which was unavailable at her initial hearing and raises questions about the strength of the government's case.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nathan, J. | Judge |
Cited in a parenthetical describing a case where a bail decision was reconsidered.
|
| Lee | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Lee.
|
| Bradshaw | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Bradshaw.
|
| Rowe | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Rowe.
|
| Petrov | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Petrov.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the current case, who has obtained new information and is seeking a bail application.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Initial detention hearing for Ms. Maxwell, at which substantial information and voluminous discovery were not yet available.
Ms. Maxwell's counsel received and reviewed voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government.
Ms. Maxwell's counsel
the government
Ms. Maxwell is presenting additional evidence in support of her bail application.
Ms. Maxwell
the Court
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District of New Mexico, location of the court in the cited case United States v. Lee.
|
|
|
District of Kansas, location of the court in the cited case United States v. Bradshaw.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, location of the court in the cited cases United States v. Rowe and United States v. Pe...
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that 'Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government'.
Key Quotes (4)
"could have not have martialed"Source
— unspecified defendant
(Describing evidence a defendant could not have gathered in the 17 days between indictment and the original hearing in the cited case United States v. Lee.)
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
Quote #1
"[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."Source
— Court in United States v. Rowe
(A quote from a cited case establishing the Court's authority to reconsider a release order.)
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
Quote #2
"Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision"Source
— Court in United States v. Petrov
(A quote from a cited case noting the court's authority to reconsider bail decisions.)
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
Quote #3
"material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release"Source
— § 3142(f)
(A requirement from statute § 3142(f) that new evidence must meet to justify reopening a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001986.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,173 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 45
(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government’s
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision.
“[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration
was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.” United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
“[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration
was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.” United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
8
DOJ-OGR-00001986
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document