DOJ-OGR-00001276.jpg
682 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
682 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 22, 2021, discusses the legal standard for a defendant's third motion for release on bail. The central issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to decide the motion while the defendant's separate bail appeal is pending, with the document citing case law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to outline the court's authority in such a situation.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rodgers | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996)'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Referred to throughout the document as the decision-making body in the case.
|
| The Government | Government agency |
The opposing party to the Defendant, which opposed the motion for release on bail.
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned in the context of a case name ('United States v. Rodgers'), the Eighth Amendment to the United States Const...
|
| court of appeals | Judicial body |
Mentioned as the body that gains jurisdiction after an appeal is filed.
|
| district court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as the body that is divested of control over aspects of a case involved in an appeal.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-03-09
The Government opposed the Defendant’s motion for release on bail.
The Government
Defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in relation to the United States Constitution and the Bail Reform Act.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that 'The Government opposed the Defendant’s motion' for release on bail.
Key Quotes (1)
"As a general matter, ‘the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance— it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’"Source
— United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996)
(Cited as a legal principle regarding the divestiture of jurisdiction when an appeal is filed.)
DOJ-OGR-00001276.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,975 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 169-2 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 12
escape; and that the Defendant’s lack of candor regarding her family ties and financial situations raised serious doubts as to her willingness to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
See Dkt. No. 106.
On February 23, 2021, the Defendant filed a third motion for release on bail. Dkt. No. 160 (“Def. Mot.”). The Government opposed the Defendant’s motion on March 9, 2021. Dkt. No. 165 (“Gov’t Opp’n”). The Defendant filed her reply under temporary seal on March 16, 2021.
II. Legal Standard
The parties dispute whether the divestiture of jurisdiction rule precludes this Court from granting the Defendant’s third bail motion while Defendant’s bail appeal is pending. See Gov’t Opp’n at 2–3; Reply at 2–3; see also United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) (“As a general matter, ‘the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance— it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’”) (citation omitted). Under Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, the Court unquestionably has authority to defer considering the motion, deny the motion, or state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a). Because the Court denies the Defendant’s motion, it does not resolve the question of whether it would have jurisdiction to grant it.
Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires that a court release a defendant “subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the
3
DOJ-OGR-00001276
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document