DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
741 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
741 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing by the Government in the criminal case against Mr. Epstein, filed on July 18, 2019. It argues that the standard rules of evidence do not apply to bail hearings and that for the specific charges involving sexual victimization of a minor, there is a legal presumption in favor of pretrial detention. The document states that while Mr. Epstein can rebut this presumption, the Government retains the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he is a danger.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Paulino |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. Paulino.
|
|
| Shakur |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. Shakur.
|
|
| LaFontaine |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. LaFontaine.
|
|
| Abuhamra |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. Abuhamra.
|
|
| Bartok |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. Bartok.
|
|
| English |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. English.
|
|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
The defendant in the current case, who may rebut the presumption of remand.
|
| Mercedes |
Defendant in a cited case, United States v. Mercedes.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Referred to as the party entitled to present evidence for remand and retaining the 'ultimate burden of persuasion'.
|
| district court | government agency |
Mentioned as having 'special province' and 'wide discretion' in bail hearings.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in multiple case laws.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Bail hearings are discussed as informal affairs where the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply.
district court
Government
defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Paulino.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the legal arguments between the Government (prosecution) and Mr. Epstein (defendant) regarding his potential pretrial detention. The Government argues for remand, while the document describes the process by which Mr. Epstein can rebut this.
Key Quotes (6)
"The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the ‘special province’ of the district court."Source
— United States v. Paulino
(Quoted to establish the district court's authority in weighing factors for release or detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #1
"The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing."Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)
(Cited to argue that standard evidence rules are not applicable in the current hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #2
"bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery"Source
— United States v. LaFontaine
(Quoted to support the argument about the nature of bail hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #3
"District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such hearings . . . ."Source
— United States v. Abuhamra
(Quoted to emphasize the court's discretion in detention hearings.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #4
"coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight."Source
— United States v. Mercedes
(Describing how Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption of remand.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #5
"ultimate burden of persuasion"Source
— Legal principle
(Describing the Government's responsibility to prove that Mr. Epstein presents a danger.)
DOJ-OGR-00000480.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,103 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 9 of 33
defendant’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). “The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the ‘special province’ of the district court.” United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)).
“The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) (emphasis added). For example, the Government is entitled to present evidence supporting remand by way of proffer, among other means. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) (“bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery”). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) “District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such hearings . . . .” United States v. Bartok, 472 F. App’x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012).
E. The Presumption of Remand in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 Cases
A 18 U.S.C. § 1591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it includes a presumption in favor of pretrial detention, reflecting the significant harm caused by such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption is that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E)). Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption by “coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government retains the “ultimate burden of persuasion” that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the
9
DOJ-OGR-00000480
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document