DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
741 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
741 KB
Summary
This legal document outlines the statutory framework for pretrial detention in cases involving minor victims, establishing a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community. It details the defendant's burden to produce evidence to counter this presumption and clarifies that the government retains the ultimate burden of proof. The document also specifies the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened, primarily requiring new, material information that was previously unknown to the moving party.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| English | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011)'.
|
| Mercedes | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)'.
|
| Petrov | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886'.
|
| Rowe | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government | government agency |
Appears as the plaintiff in several cited court cases (e.g., 'United States v. English'). Referred to as 'the Governm...
|
| 2d Cir. | court |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in 'United States v. English' and 'United States v. ...
|
| S.D.N.Y. | court |
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, cited in 'United States v. Petrov' and 'Unite...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in case citations.
|
Key Quotes (6)
"the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.’"Source
— United States v. English
(Describing the defendant's burden to rebut the presumption of detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #1
"does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention."Source
— United States v. English
(Clarifying that producing evidence against flight risk does not automatically remove the presumption of detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #2
"remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court,"Source
— United States v. English
(Explaining that the presumption of detention continues to be a factor for the court's consideration.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #3
"may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that 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 there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance"Source
— Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142(f))
(Stating the conditions under which a detention hearing can be reopened.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #4
"[a] court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk."Source
— United States v. Petrov
(Providing grounds for a court to deny reopening a detention hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #5
"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
(Noting an exception where a release order can be reconsidered even with previously known evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00001152.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,163 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00330-AJN Document 100-2 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 36
Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In such a case, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.’” United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)). The act of producing such evidence, however, “does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention.” Id. Rather, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court,” while the Government retains the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the defendant presents a risk of flight. Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436.
When the Court has already issued a detention order, the Bail Reform Act provides that the detention hearing “may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that 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 there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance” of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Accordingly, “[a] court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk.” United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that “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, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments “warrant
7
DOJ-OGR-00001152
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document