DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
790 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
6
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
790 KB
Summary
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to the Clerk of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter cites the precedent set in United States v. Watkins to argue that the Bail Reform Act permits a court to conduct a fact-based, "conduct-specific inquiry" for felonies involving a minor victim, rather than being limited to the legal elements of the charge. This submission is intended to provide supplemental authority to the court concerning the upcoming argument in Maxwell's case.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe | Clerk of Court |
Recipient of the letter, addressed as 'Dear Ms. Wolfe:'.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Named in the case caption 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
|
| Silvio J. Mollo |
The U.S. Attorney's office building is named 'The Silvio J. Mollo Building'.
|
|
| Thurgood Marshall |
The courthouse is named 'Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Department of Justice | government agency |
Appears in the letterhead.
|
| United States Attorney, Southern District of New York | government agency |
The sender of the letter.
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | court |
The court to which the letter is addressed, where Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe is the Clerk.
|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the United States Attorney's office, the party submitting the letter.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-03-12
Argument date for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Docket No. 22-1426.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States
Ghislaine Maxwell
Locations (6)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the United States Attorney sending the letter.
|
|
|
The building housing the U.S. Attorney's office.
|
|
|
Address of the U.S. Attorney's office.
|
|
|
The courthouse where the recipient works.
|
|
|
Address of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
|
|
City and state mentioned in two addresses.
|
Relationships (2)
The document is a filing in the court case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell'.
The U.S. Attorney is submitting a legal letter to the Clerk of Court as part of official court procedure.
Key Quotes (5)
"any felony . . . that involves a minor victim . . ."Source
— Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E)
(Quoted portion of the Bail Reform Act that requires a detention hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
Quote #1
"conduct-specific inquiry in which the judicial officer may look beyond the elements of the charged offense to consider the actual conduct underlying the arrestee’s charged offense."Source
— United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152
(Explanation from the Watkins case on how a court may interpret the Bail Reform Act.)
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
Quote #2
"refers to a ‘minor victim,’"Source
— United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152
(Reasoning from the Watkins case that the phrase suggests looking at factual details.)
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
Quote #3
"afford minor victims of crime the greatest degree of protection."Source
— Legislative history of Section 3142(f)(1)(E)
(The stated intent of the statute, as explained by the Court in Watkins.)
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
Quote #4
"refers, variously, to a ‘crime,’ an ‘offense,’ and a ‘felony,’"Source
— United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152
(Describing text from another portion of the Act that requires a categorical approach.)
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,110 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 101, 03/10/2024, 3614237, Page1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Southern District of New York
The Silvio J. Mollo Building
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
One Saint Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007
March 10, 2024
By CM/ECF
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell,
Docket No. 22-1426
Argument date: March 12, 2023
Docket No. 22-1426
Argument date: March 12, 2023
Dear Ms. Wolfe:
The Government respectfully submits this letter, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), to inform this Court of United States v. Watkins, 940 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2019).
In Watkins, this Court explained that the portion of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(E), that required a detention hearing for “any felony . . . that involves a minor victim . . .” permits a court to conduct a “conduct-specific inquiry in which the judicial officer may look beyond the elements of the charged offense to consider the actual conduct underlying the arrestee’s charged offense.” 940 F.3d at 165, 167. Because that phrase “refers to a ‘minor victim,’” it “suggest[s] factual details surrounding the charged conduct.” Id. at 166. The Court also noted the absence of a textual trigger for the categorical approach like “that has as an element.” Id. at 166 n.70. The Court further explained that its conclusion was reinforced by legislative history, namely, the inclusion of Section 3142(f)(1)(E) in a statute intended to “afford minor victims of crime the greatest degree of protection.” Id. at 166.
The Court contrasted Section 3142(f)(1)(E) with another portion of the Act that contains the word “involves” but requires use of the categorical approach, because that text “refers, variously, to a ‘crime,’ an ‘offense,’ and a ‘felony,’” indicating an emphasis on the nature of the legal charge rather than “factual details.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3182(f)(1) (discussing “a case that involves . . . a crime of violence . . .”); see id. at 162-65.
DOJ-OGR-00021790
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document