DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
727 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
727 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing dated September 22, 2021, that discusses the legal standards for pretrial detention and the reopening of bail hearings. It references the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), which allows for reopening a hearing with new, material information, and also cites case law (Raniere, Havens, Rowe, Petrov) to establish that a court has inherent authority to reconsider its own bail decisions even without new evidence.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Raniere | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Raniere.
|
| Havens | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Havens.
|
| Rowe | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Rowe.
|
| Petrov | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Petrov.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court | government agency |
Referred to as "The Court" throughout the document, discussing its authority regarding bail hearings.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Raniere.
|
|
|
Western District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Havens.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citations for United States v. Rowe and United States v. Petrov.
|
Relationships (4)
The document cites the case United States v. Raniere, indicating an adversarial legal relationship between the government and the defendant.
The document cites the case United States v. Havens, indicating an adversarial legal relationship between the government and the defendant.
The document cites the case United States v. Rowe, indicating an adversarial legal relationship between the government and the defendant.
The document cites the case United States v. Petrov, indicating an adversarial legal relationship between the government and the defendant.
Key Quotes (5)
"no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community."Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)
(The legal standard a court must conclude to hold a defendant without bail.)
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
Quote #1
"information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue"Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)
(The condition under the Bail Reform Act for a court to reopen a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
Quote #2
"[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another"Source
— Court in United States v. Raniere
(A note from a court decision illustrating that a court is not required to reopen a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
Quote #3
"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
— Court in United States v. Rowe
(A note from a court decision establishing the court's inherent authority to revisit its decisions, even outside the specific statutory text of § 3142(f).)
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
Quote #4
"Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision"Source
— Court in United States v. Petrov
(A note from a court decision affirming the court's power to reconsider its own bail rulings.)
DOJ-OGR-00000867.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,112 characters)
Case 1:21-cr-00330-AJN Document 1692 Filed 09/22/21 Page 4 of 12
person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The Court may order that the defendant be held without bail only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the Court to reopen the bail hearing if “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 pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that “[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another”); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court’s decision to detain the defendant until trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)’s statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) (noting 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. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the “Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Bail Reform Act allows the Court to reopen the bail hearing if “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 pretrial detention is warranted. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court is not required to do so if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue. See United States v. Raniere, No. 18-CR-2041 (NGG) (VMS), 2018 WL 6344202, at *2 n.7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) (noting that “[a]s the court has already held one detention hearing, it need not hold another”); United States v. Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335, 339 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (electing not to reopen a detention hearing because the new information would not have changed the court’s decision to detain the defendant until trial). In addition, the Court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even when the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)’s statutory text. See, e.g., United States v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) (noting 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. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the “Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
4
DOJ-OGR-00000867
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document