DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
517 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
517 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document, filed on June 30, 2020, outlines the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing. It cites several legal precedents to argue that a court is not required to reopen such a hearing unless new, material information is presented that was not known at the time of the original hearing. The document is part of a discussion regarding a defendant's renewed motion for bail.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| English |
Cited in the case citation 'English, 629 F.3d at 319'.
|
|
| Mercedes |
Cited in the case citation 'Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436'.
|
|
| Martir |
Cited in the case citation 'United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986)'.
|
|
| Mattis |
Cited in the case citation 'United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290 91 (2d Cir. 2020)'.
|
|
| Raniere |
Cited in the case citation 'United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202'.
|
|
| Havens |
Cited in the case citation 'United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as a party in multiple case citations, such as 'United States v. Martir'.
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
Referenced in case citations, indicating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
| E.D.N.Y. | court |
Referenced in a case citation, indicating the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
|
| W.D.N.Y. | court |
Referenced in a case citation, indicating the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00001213', likely referring to the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2018-12-05
The Defendant filed a renewed motion for bail.
Defendant
The document discusses the legal standards for reopening a bail hearing or detention hearing.
Relationships (4)
Adversarial parties in the legal case 'United States v. Martir'.
Adversarial parties in the legal case 'United States v. Mattis'.
Adversarial parties in the legal case 'United States v. Raniere'.
Adversarial parties in the legal case 'United States v. Havens'.
Key Quotes (5)
"defendant presents a danger to the community,’ and ‘by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.’"Source
— English, 629 F.3d at 319
(Quoted to establish the standards for determining if a defendant is a danger or flight risk.)
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
Quote #1
"The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case]."Source
— United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141
(A quote from a legal precedent regarding the burden of persuasion in detention cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
Quote #2
"the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court."Source
— United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285
(A quote explaining that even if a defendant meets their burden of production, the presumption of detention remains a factor.)
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
Quote #3
"information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue"Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)
(The legal standard from a federal statute for when a court may reopen a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
Quote #4
"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another"Source
— United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041
(A quote from a case noting that a court is not required to hold a second detention hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001213.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,153 characters)
Case: 20-07008-cr-AHD Document 1062 Filed 06/30/20 Page 416 of 522
defendant presents a danger to the community,’ and ‘by the lesser standard of a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.’” English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436); see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (“The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case].”). Even when “a defendant has met his burden of production,” however, “the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290 91 (2d Cir. 2020).
After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if “information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue” of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that “[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another” the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) are met); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court’s decision to detain the defendant until trial).
III. Discussion
The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and the Court’s inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7 9. As already noted, § 3142(f) provides that a bail hearing “may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the
4
DOJ-OGR-00001213
After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if “information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue” of whether pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). But the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that “[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another” the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) are met); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court’s decision to detain the defendant until trial).
III. Discussion
The Defendant bases her renewed motion for bail on both 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and the Court’s inherent powers to review its own bail decisions. See Def. Mot. at 7 9. As already noted, § 3142(f) provides that a bail hearing “may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the
4
DOJ-OGR-00001213
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document