DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
740 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
9
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
740 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing from December 18, 2020, in which the Court reaffirms its decision to deny bail to a defendant. The Court rejects the defense's arguments, which cite precedents like the cases of Esposito, Dreier, and Madoff, by highlighting crucial factual differences, such as the current defendant's significant foreign connections and demonstrated sophistication in hiding financial resources.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jackson | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)'.
|
| Goord | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)'.
|
| Esposito | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)'. The court distinguish...
|
| Dreier | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)' as a case cited by the ...
|
| Madoff | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)'. The court distinguishe...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
Referenced throughout the document as the decision-making judicial body that denied bail and is responding to the def...
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the cases against Esposito, Dreier, and Madoff.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in multiple case citations, indicating the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
|
Key Quotes (9)
"high-profile defendants with financial means and foreign citizenship."Source
— defense
(A quote from the defense's argument regarding proposed bail conditions.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #1
"A motion for reconsideration may not be used . . . as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court."Source
— Jackson v. Goord
(A legal principle cited by the Court to reject the defense's efforts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #2
"serious and high-profile prosecutions where the courts, over the government’s objection, granted bail to defendants with significant financial resources."Source
— defense
(The defense's characterization of cases it is citing as precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #3
"crucial factual differences,"Source
— The Court
(The Court's reason for distinguishing the current case from those cited by the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #4
"not on point and not persuasive,"Source
— The Court
(The Court's description of the cases cited by the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #5
"significant foreign connections."Source
— The Court
(One of the reasons the Court distinguished the defendant from others.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #6
"have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found"Source
— The Court
(The Court's reasoning for distinguishing the risk of flight in the Esposito case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #7
"the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought detention"Source
— The Court
(The Court's reasoning for distinguishing the Madoff case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #8
"the defendant not only has significant financial resources, but has demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself."Source
— The Court
(A finding by the Court supporting the decision to detain the defendant.)
DOJ-OGR-00002191.jpg
Quote #9
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,200 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 30 of 36
In urging a different conclusion, the defense again cites the same cases discussed in its initial briefing and at the July 14, 2020 hearing to argue that the proposed bail conditions are consistent with or exceed those approved by courts in this Circuit for “high-profile defendants with financial means and foreign citizenship.” (Mot. at 34; see Dkt. 18 at 16, 21; Tr. 48-51). The Court should reject the defense’s efforts to raise the same precedent that the Court already took into consideration when denying bail. “A motion for reconsideration may not be used . . . as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court already considered and rejected the defendant’s efforts to liken her case to other “serious and high-profile prosecutions where the courts, over the government’s objection, granted bail to defendants with significant financial resources.” (Tr. 88). Noting “crucial factual differences,” the Court described those cases, including United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as “not on point and not persuasive,” and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the defendant’s “significant foreign connections.” (Tr. 88; see id. (distinguishing Esposito where the risk of flight appeared to “have been based on the resources available to defendant, not foreign connections or experience and a record of hiding from being found”); id. (distinguishing Madoff where “the defendant had already been released on a bail package agreed to by the parties for a considerable period of time before the government sought detention”)).
The Court already engaged in a fact-specific analysis in ordering the defendant detained. Among the reasons provided, the Court found that the “the defendant not only has significant financial resources, but has demonstrated sophistication in hiding those resources and herself.”
27
DOJ-OGR-00002191
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document