DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, outlines the legal standards for pre-trial detention concerning the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It details the government's dual burden to prove she is a flight risk and that no conditions can ensure her appearance in court. The document also discusses the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release and how the defense can counter it, noting that unlike in the Epstein case, the government is not arguing that Ms. Maxwell is a danger to the community.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sabhnani |
Cited in the case Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75, regarding the government's burden to show a defendant is an actual risk o...
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of the "Epstein case," which is contrasted with the current case involving Ms. Maxwell.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the current case. The document states the government does not contend she poses a danger to the comm...
|
| English |
Cited in the case United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319, regarding the defendant's burden to rebut the presumpt...
|
|
| Conway |
Cited in the case United States v. Conway, regarding the satisfaction of the rebuttable presumption.
|
|
| Dominguez |
Cited in the case United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707, regarding evidence that can affect the presumption a...
|
|
| Mattis |
Cited in the case United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government | government agency |
Referred to as "the government," it is the prosecuting party that bears the burden in seeking pre-trial detention.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Discussion of the legal standards and burdens for pre-trial detention in the case against Ms. Maxwell.
government
Ms. Maxwell
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Conway, referring to the Northern District of California.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. English, referring to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Dominguez, referring to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the government's legal burden in seeking to detain the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, before trial.
Key Quotes (4)
"by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant . . . presents an actual risk of flight."Source
— Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75
(Describing the first part of the government's dual burden in seeking pre-trial detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
Quote #1
"demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court."Source
— Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75
(Describing the second part of the government's burden if it proves the defendant is a flight risk.)
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
Quote #2
"defendant bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [she] does not pose . . . a risk of flight."Source
— United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319
(Explaining the defendant's role when the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption against release applies.)
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
Quote #3
"[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a category listed in § 3142(g) can affect the operation” of the presumption."Source
— United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707
(Describing how the rebuttable presumption against release can be satisfied.)
DOJ-OGR-00001594.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,112 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 14 of 26
The government bears a dual burden in seeking pre-trial detention. First, the government must show “by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant . . . presents an actual risk of flight.” Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (emphasis added). If the government is able to satisfy this burden, it must then “demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.” Id.
In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, the court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
In this case, unlike in the Epstein case, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, and therefore the fourth factor does not apply.
The Bail Reform Act contains a rebuttable presumption, applicable based on certain of the crimes charged here, that no conditions will reasonably assure against flight. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In cases where this presumption applies, the “defendant bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [she] does not pose . . . a risk of flight.” See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4–11–70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and “[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a category listed in § 3142(g) can affect the operation” of the presumption. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713,
10
DOJ-OGR-00001594
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document