DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
527 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
527 KB
Summary
This legal document argues for the reconsideration of Ms. Maxwell's bail application. It cites several legal precedents that allow a court to reopen bail hearings based on new evidence or changed circumstances. The primary new evidence cited is the voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) produced by the government after the initial hearing, which the defense claims raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nathan, J. | Judge |
Cited as the judge in a case reconsidering a bail decision.
|
| Lee | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Lee.
|
| Bradshaw | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Bradshaw.
|
| Rowe | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Rowe.
|
| Petrov | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Petrov.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the current case, who is seeking a bail application reconsideration based on new evidence.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BOP | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of concern about a possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities.
|
| United States | government agency |
Named as the plaintiff in several cited court cases (United States v. Lee, United States v. Bradshaw, etc.).
|
| The Court | government entity |
Referred to throughout the document as the body with the authority to reconsider bail decisions.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00001110).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Initial detention hearing for Ms. Maxwell.
The government produced voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) to Ms. Maxwell and her counsel.
Ms. Maxwell is presenting a bail application for the Court's consideration.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District of New Mexico, the court district for the cited case United States v. Lee.
|
|
|
District of Kansas, the court district for the cited case United States v. Bradshaw.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, the court district for the cited cases United States v. Rowe and United States v. Petrov.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government'.
The government is the prosecuting party in the case against Ms. Maxwell and produced discovery materials to her defense team.
Key Quotes (4)
"could have not have martialed"Source
— United States v. Lee
(Quoted from a case where a hearing was reopened to consider affidavits the defendant could not have gathered in the 17 days between indictment and the original hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
Quote #1
"[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."Source
— United States v. Rowe
(A quote from a legal precedent establishing the court's authority to reconsider a release order.)
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
Quote #2
"Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision"Source
— United States v. Petrov
(A quote from a legal precedent noting the court's authority to reconsider its own bail decisions.)
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
Quote #3
"material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release"Source
— § 3142(f)
(A quote describing a requirement for new evidence to be considered in a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001110.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,171 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 192 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 15
(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government’s
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision.
“[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration
was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.” United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
“[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration
was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.” United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
8
DOJ-OGR-00001110
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document