DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
724 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
724 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from a federal case, dated December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards and precedents for reopening a bail hearing, arguing that a court is not required to do so unless new information has a material bearing on the issue of pretrial detention. The text cites several cases to support the court's discretion in reviewing its own bail decisions and deciding whether to hold another hearing.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| English |
Cited in the case law 'English, 629 F.3d at 319'.
|
|
| Mercedes |
Cited in the case law 'Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436'.
|
|
| Martir |
Cited in the case law 'United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986)'.
|
|
| Mattis |
Cited in the case law 'United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290–91 (2d Cir. 2020)'.
|
|
| Raniere |
Cited in the case law 'United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202'.
|
|
| Havens |
Cited in the case law 'United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as 'United States v. Martir'.
|
| District Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as the body that weighs factors regarding detention.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
Referred to throughout the document as the decision-making judicial body.
|
Relationships (2)
The Defendant has filed a renewed motion for bail, which the Court is considering based on its inherent powers and statutory guidelines.
Government
→
Adversarial (Legal)
→
Defendant
The document discusses the legal burdens of the government (persuasion) and the defendant (production) in the context of a pretrial detention hearing.
Key Quotes (4)
"The government retains the burden of persuasion [in a presumption case.]"Source
— United States v. Martir
(Quoted to establish the government's burden in detention hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
Quote #1
"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
(Quoted to explain the role of presumption even after a defendant meets their burden of production.)
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
Quote #2
"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)
(Cited as the statutory condition for reopening a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
Quote #3
"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another"Source
— United States v. Raniere
(Cited to support the court's discretion not to reopen a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00002236.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,155 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 4 of 22
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-00002236
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document