DOJ-OGR-00000541.jpg
570 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
570 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, in which an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, argues against the detention of his client, Mr. Epstein. Weinberg contends that after he rebuts the presumption of danger, the burden of proof falls on the government, and he asserts that the government has found no allegations of illegal sexual activity by Epstein since 2005, despite a lengthy investigation.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. WEINBERG | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing on behalf of a client about the burden of proof regarding 'danger'.
|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant/Client |
Subject of the legal argument, mentioned in the context of allegations of illegal sexual activity after 2005.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as being 'very clear' that the 'danger prong is predictive'.
|
| government | government agency |
The opposing party in the legal proceeding, on whom the burden of proof falls after rebuttal, and which has been inve...
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the document, listed in the footer.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-07-24
Mr. Weinberg presents a legal argument regarding the burden of proof for demonstrating his client, Mr. Epstein, is a future danger.
Courtroom
post-2005
The government has been investigating Mr. Epstein for months regarding potential illegal activity after 2005.
Relationships (2)
Mr. Weinberg is making legal arguments on behalf of Mr. Epstein, indicating an attorney-client relationship.
The government is the prosecuting entity in a legal case against Mr. Epstein, investigating him and arguing for his detention.
Key Quotes (2)
"I think I have to bear the burden of rebutting the presumption as to each prong, although I think once rebutting the burden falls on the government, and then they have different substantive burdens of proof."Source
— MR. WEINBERG
(Explaining his understanding of the legal procedure for arguing against his client's detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00000541.jpg
Quote #1
"And the government, despite a website, despite their enormous ability to investigate -- and they've been investigating for months -- there is no allegation that Mr. Epstein, after 2005, engaged in illegal sexual activity with a minor."Source
— MR. WEINBERG
(Arguing that there is no recent evidence to support the claim that his client is a future danger.)
DOJ-OGR-00000541.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,550 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 31 of 74
1 risk, that would suffice.
2 MR. WEINBERG: I think I have to bear the burden of
3 rebutting the presumption as to each prong, although I think
4 once rebutting the burden falls on the government, and then
5 they have different substantive burdens of proof.
6 So danger. There are two categories of the dangers
7 that have been identified by the government. Number one is
8 simply the danger of recidivism which is the classic danger
9 that results in detention when detention is predicated on
10 danger.
11 And Congress was very clear that they -- because the
12 danger prong is predictive. It is not just was he a bad guy.
13 Did he do things in the past. That's what a trial is for.
14 That's what legal issues are for. It's can we infer from the
15 past that he is a future danger and can we do it by clear and
16 convincing evidence.
17 In terms of rebutting and the burden of production as
18 to that part of the danger prong, 14 years, since 2005 until
19 2019. And the government, despite a website, despite their
20 enormous ability to investigate -- and they've been
21 investigating for months -- there is no allegation that
22 Mr. Epstein, after 2005, engaged in illegal sexual activity
23 with a minor.
24 Again, I'm not diminishing the gravity of the
25 allegations in 2005 and 2004, but once he knew that he was
2 MR. WEINBERG: I think I have to bear the burden of
3 rebutting the presumption as to each prong, although I think
4 once rebutting the burden falls on the government, and then
5 they have different substantive burdens of proof.
6 So danger. There are two categories of the dangers
7 that have been identified by the government. Number one is
8 simply the danger of recidivism which is the classic danger
9 that results in detention when detention is predicated on
10 danger.
11 And Congress was very clear that they -- because the
12 danger prong is predictive. It is not just was he a bad guy.
13 Did he do things in the past. That's what a trial is for.
14 That's what legal issues are for. It's can we infer from the
15 past that he is a future danger and can we do it by clear and
16 convincing evidence.
17 In terms of rebutting and the burden of production as
18 to that part of the danger prong, 14 years, since 2005 until
19 2019. And the government, despite a website, despite their
20 enormous ability to investigate -- and they've been
21 investigating for months -- there is no allegation that
22 Mr. Epstein, after 2005, engaged in illegal sexual activity
23 with a minor.
24 Again, I'm not diminishing the gravity of the
25 allegations in 2005 and 2004, but once he knew that he was
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000541
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document