DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
812 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
812 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on July 10, 2020, is a memorandum arguing against the detention of Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that she has rebutted the presumption of being a flight risk and that the government's argument, based on the potential for a long sentence, oversimplifies the legal standard. The document cites several legal precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to support its position while distinguishing Ms. Maxwell's case from those cited by the prosecution (Alindato-Perez).
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, who is argued to have rebutted the presumption of flight risk.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his arrest, after which Ms. Maxwell decided to remain in the United States.
|
|
| Deutsch |
Cited in a legal case (Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398).
|
|
| Veres | Defendant |
Defendant in a cited case (United States v. Veres).
|
| Conway |
Cited in a legal case (Conway, 2011 WL 3421321).
|
|
| Friedman |
Cited in a legal case (Friedman, 837 F.2d at 49-50).
|
|
| Sabhnani |
Cited in a legal case (Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77).
|
|
| Alindato-Perez | Defendant |
Defendant in a cited case (United States v. Alindato-Perez) which the document argues is distinguishable from Ms. Max...
|
| Moscaritolo |
Cited in a legal case (United States v. Moscaritolo) that approvingly cited the Alindato-Perez case.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| This Court | government agency |
The court presiding over Ms. Maxwell's case.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals whose standard on flight risk is cited.
|
| United States government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the government', the prosecuting party in the case.
|
| M.D. Fla. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, mentioned in a case citation.
|
| D.P.R. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, mentioned in a case citation.
|
| D.N.H. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Ms. Maxwell has ties to the United States and decided to remain in the country after Epstein's arrest.
|
|
|
Location of the court in the United States v. Veres case citation.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that Ms. Maxwell made a conscious decision to remain in the United States after Epstein's arrest, suggesting a connection relevant to the legal proceedings.
Key Quotes (6)
"require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight."Source
— Second Circuit
(Quoted from the Friedman case to argue against detention based solely on the potential for a long sentence.)
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #1
"long sentence of incarceration"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #2
"lengthy term of incarceration"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . ."Source
— United States v. Moscaritolo
(A proposition cited by the government from a previous case to argue for detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #4
"continu[ed] until the date of the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #5
"clearly incriminating video tapes"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001602.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,640 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 22 of 26
applicable presumption relates to risk of flight, and, as noted, Ms. Maxwell has rebutted that
presumption based on her ties to the United States, her decision to remain in this country
after Epstein’s arrest, and all of the other reasons discussed above. This Court should follow
other courts in this Circuit and elsewhere that have found that defendants rebutted the
presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged
offenses against minors. See Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398, at *5-6; United States v. Veres,
No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Conway,
2011 WL 3421321, at *4-5.
presumption based on her ties to the United States, her decision to remain in this country
after Epstein’s arrest, and all of the other reasons discussed above. This Court should follow
other courts in this Circuit and elsewhere that have found that defendants rebutted the
presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged
offenses against minors. See Deutsch, 2020 WL 3577398, at *5-6; United States v. Veres,
No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020); Conway,
2011 WL 3421321, at *4-5.
The Impact of the Potential Penalties Is Overstated. The government asserts that
detention is warranted because of the potential for a long sentence in this case. (Gov. Mem.
at 4-5.) This oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential
punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidence of
the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a
finding of risk of flight.” Friedman, 837 F.2d at 49-50 (district court’s finding that
defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for “long sentence
of incarceration”); see also Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order
where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact
that they faced a “lengthy term of incarceration”). Accordingly, the asserted potential for a
long sentence does not meet the government’s burden of persuasion.¹⁴
detention is warranted because of the potential for a long sentence in this case. (Gov. Mem.
at 4-5.) This oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential
punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidence of
the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a
finding of risk of flight.” Friedman, 837 F.2d at 49-50 (district court’s finding that
defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for “long sentence
of incarceration”); see also Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order
where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact
that they faced a “lengthy term of incarceration”). Accordingly, the asserted potential for a
long sentence does not meet the government’s burden of persuasion.¹⁴
___
¹⁴ The government relies on United States v. Alindato-Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009), cited
approvingly by United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at *2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) for
the proposition that “[t]he steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering
the strong case of the government . . . .” (Gov. Mem. at 5.) But Alindato-Perez is easily distinguished on its facts
from Ms. Maxwell’s case. Alindato-Perez was a narcotics case that did not involve 20-year old conduct as here, but
instead involved a conspiracy that “continu[ed] until the date of the indictment.” 627 F. Supp. 2d at 60-61. The
evidence included eleven “clearly incriminating video tapes” and testimony from various cooperating witnesses, and
the defendant faced a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 61-64. These factors are not present in this case.
¹⁴ The government relies on United States v. Alindato-Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009), cited
approvingly by United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679, at *2 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) for
the proposition that “[t]he steeper the potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering
the strong case of the government . . . .” (Gov. Mem. at 5.) But Alindato-Perez is easily distinguished on its facts
from Ms. Maxwell’s case. Alindato-Perez was a narcotics case that did not involve 20-year old conduct as here, but
instead involved a conspiracy that “continu[ed] until the date of the indictment.” 627 F. Supp. 2d at 60-61. The
evidence included eleven “clearly incriminating video tapes” and testimony from various cooperating witnesses, and
the defendant faced a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 61-64. These factors are not present in this case.
18
DOJ-OGR-00001602
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document