DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
754 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
754 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the pretrial detention of a defendant, Mr. Epstein. It establishes that rules of evidence are relaxed in bail hearings, giving courts wide discretion, and cites legal precedent that in cases involving sexual victimization of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, there is a presumption for remand. The document states that the burden is on Mr. Epstein to provide evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, while the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Paulino | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)'.
|
| Shakur | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)'.
|
| LaFontaine | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)'.
|
| Abuhamra | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004)'.
|
| Bartok | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Bartok, 472 F. App’x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012)'.
|
| English | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011)'.
|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant who may rebut the presumption of remand and who the Government argues presents a danger.
|
| Mercedes | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned as the party entitled to present evidence for remand and which retains the 'ultimate burden of persuasion' ...
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Court |
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Paulino.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, mentioned in multiple case citations.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Discussion of legal standards for bail hearings and pretrial detention, specifically regarding the admissibility of evidence and the presumption of remand.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced by the abbreviation S.D.N.Y. in a case citation.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the legal arguments between the Government, which seeks to keep Mr. Epstein detained, and Mr. Epstein, who has the opportunity to rebut the presumption for his detention.
Key Quotes (6)
"The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the ‘special province’ of the district court."Source
— United States v. Paulino
(Quoted to establish the district court's discretion in weighing factors for release or detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #1
"The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing."Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)
(Cited to argue that standard rules of evidence do not apply in the current hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #2
"bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery"Source
— United States v. LaFontaine
(Quoted to support the argument that the hearing is not a formal trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #3
"District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such hearings . . . ."Source
— United States v. Abuhamra
(Quoted to emphasize the court's broad discretion in detention hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #4
"coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight."Source
— United States v. Mercedes
(Describes how Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption of remand.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #5
"ultimate burden of persuasion"Source
— Government
(Describes the Government's responsibility to prove that Mr. Epstein presents a danger.)
DOJ-OGR-00000792.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,103 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 33
defendant’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). “The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the ‘special province’ of the district court.” United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)).
“The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) (emphasis added). For example, the Government is entitled to present evidence supporting remand by way of proffer, among other means. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) (“bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery”). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) “District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such hearings . . . .” United States v. Bartok, 472 F. App’x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012).
E. The Presumption of Remand in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 Cases
A 18 U.S.C. § 1591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it includes a presumption in favor of pretrial detention, reflecting the significant harm caused by such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption is that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E)). Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption by “coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government retains the “ultimate burden of persuasion” that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the
9
DOJ-OGR-00000792
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document