DOJ-OGR-00002235.jpg
712 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief
File Size:
712 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Document 106) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 30, 2020. It outlines the legal standards for pretrial detention and bail under the Eighth Amendment and the Bail Reform Act. It notes that the defendant (Maxwell) did not appeal the initial detention order and remains incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Metropolitan Detention Center | Correctional Facility |
Place where the defendant has been incarcerated.
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Judicial Body |
Cited in legal precedents (2d Cir.).
|
| DOJ | Government Agency |
Department of Justice, referenced in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of defendant's incarceration.
|
Relationships (1)
she has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time
Key Quotes (3)
"Defendant did not appeal the Court’s determination that detention was required, and she has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002235.jpg
Quote #1
"Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002235.jpg
Quote #2
"In such circumstances, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.’”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002235.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,090 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 3 of 22
Defendant did not appeal the Court’s determination that detention was required, and she has been
incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.
incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.
II. Legal Standard
Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of “[e]xcessive bail,” and under the Bail Reform
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant
“subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it]
determines 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(c)(1)(B). 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,” may the Court order that the defendant be held without
bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of “[e]xcessive bail,” and under the Bail Reform
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant
“subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it]
determines 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(c)(1)(B). 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,” may the Court order that the defendant be held without
bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
If there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically
enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises “that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure” the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or
others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of
production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose
a danger to the community or 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)); see also
United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[A] defendant must introduce some
evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption.”). Nonetheless, “‘the
government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the
enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises “that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure” the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or
others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of
production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose
a danger to the community or 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)); see also
United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[A] defendant must introduce some
evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption.”). Nonetheless, “‘the
government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the
3
DOJ-OGR-00002235
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document