DOJ-OGR-00002238(1).jpg
695 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
695 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the Defendant's arguments for release from detention, citing new information such as family ties in the U.S., a detailed financial report, waivers of extradition from the UK and France, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these arguments, the document concludes with the Court's finding that no conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal motion, arguing for release from detention.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body making decisions on the Defendant's detention.
|
| Pretrial Services | government agency |
An agency involved in approving the Defendant's potential movements if released.
|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case against the Defendant.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to the Defendant's family ties.
|
|
|
A country from which the Defendant would waive her right to contest extradition.
|
|
|
A country from which the Defendant would waive her right to contest extradition.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details the Defendant's arguments against the Government's case and the Government's contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement.
Key Quotes (1)
"Having carefully considered all of the Defendant’s arguments, the Court again concludes that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that"Source
— Court
(The Court's conclusion after reviewing the Defendant's motion for release.)
DOJ-OGR-00002238(1).jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,052 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 6 of 22
counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. Id. at 2–3.
Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who
would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or
Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
The motion also presents new information that, according to the Defendant, addresses the
concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly
presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail
hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant’s family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at
10–14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the
Defendant’s financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15–18; evidence that according to her
rebuts the Government’s original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior
to her arrest, see id. at 18–25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United
Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able
to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25–29; and evidence that she
argues lays bare the weakness of the Government’s case against her, see id. at 30–34.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the
conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate
in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34–
38.
Having carefully considered all of the Defendant’s arguments, the Court again concludes
that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that
Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who
would prevent her from leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Court or
Pretrial Services and who would escort her when she is authorized to leave. Id. at 3.
The motion also presents new information that, according to the Defendant, addresses the
concerns that the Court articulated when it determined that detention was warranted. This newly
presented information, most of which was available to the Defendant at the time of the initial bail
hearing, includes evidence of the Defendant’s family ties in the United States, see Def. Mot. at
10–14; a detailed financial report that provides a more comprehensive outlook on the
Defendant’s financial conditions and assets, see id. at 15–18; evidence that according to her
rebuts the Government’s original contention that she attempted to evade law enforcement prior
to her arrest, see id. at 18–25; waivers of her right to contest extradition from the United
Kingdom and France, along with expert opinions claiming that the Defendant would not be able
to resist extradition if she were to execute the waivers, see id. at 25–29; and evidence that she
argues lays bare the weakness of the Government’s case against her, see id. at 30–34.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the conditions of her confinement, including as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic, present an additional factor favoring release. She claims that the
conditions imposed are punitive and that those conditions interfere with her ability to participate
in her defense, and she asserts that these factors further militate in favor of release. See id. at 34–
38.
Having carefully considered all of the Defendant’s arguments, the Court again concludes
that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that
6
DOJ-OGR-00002238
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document