DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
782 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
5
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
782 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document analyzes several precedent cases to argue for or against the detention of a defendant pending trial. It distinguishes the current case from others like *Khashoggi* and *Bodmer* where defendants were released, and draws parallels to cases like *Boustani*, *Patrick Ho*, and *Epstein* where defendants were detained. The analysis focuses on factors such as flight risk, financial resources, ties to foreign countries, and the existence of extradition treaties.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Khashoggi | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Khashoggi, where he was released pending trial.
|
| Bodmer | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Bodmer, where conditions of bail were set.
|
| Boustani | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Boustani, where he was detained pending trial.
|
| Patrick Ho | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Patrick Ho, where he was detained based on risk of flight.
|
| Epstein | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Epstein, where he was detained due to dual citizenship and other factors.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having conducted an analysis of cases.
|
| United States | Government |
A party in several cited legal cases (e.g., United States v. Khashoggi).
|
| Government | Government agency |
Referred to as a party in legal proceedings, whose arguments and evidence are discussed.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2018-02-04
In United States v. Patrick Ho, the defendant was ordered detained based on risk of flight.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Country where the defendant in the Khashoggi case waived his right to appeal extradition.
|
|
|
Country where defendants were extradited for arraignment and had ties.
|
|
|
Country of dual citizenship for the defendant in the Epstein case.
|
|
|
Country of dual citizenship for the defendant in the Epstein case, noted for its lack of an extradition treaty.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that in the case of United States v. Epstein, the "defendant and his wife owned 'substantial' property and other significant assets".
Key Quotes (6)
"based, in large part, on speculation"Source
— Court in United States v. Bodmer
(Describing the Government's argument regarding the defendant's financial resources.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #1
"failed to meet its burden"Source
— Court in United States v. Bodmer
(The court's finding regarding the Government's argument about the defendant's financial resources.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #2
"minimal"Source
— Court in United States v. Boustani
(Describing the defendant's ties to the United States as a factor in ordering detention.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #3
"extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition"Source
— Court in United States v. Boustani
(A factor contributing to the finding that the defendant posed a risk of flight.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #4
"potential ties in foreign jurisdictions"Source
— Court in United States v. Patrick Ho
(A factor cited in ordering the defendant detained.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #5
"substantial"Source
— Court in United States v. Epstein
(Describing the property and assets owned by the defendant and his wife.)
DOJ-OGR-00020091.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,294 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-560-AJN Document 1002 Filed 06/23/18 Page 31 of 36
(Tr. 87). Following the analysis the Court has already conducted, several of the cases cited by the defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s Government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”). And there is support in the case law for detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible sentence, strength of Government’s evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, “minimal” ties to the United States, and “extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition”); United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant’s risk of flight and citing the strength of the Government’s evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and “potential ties in foreign jurisdictions”); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the fact that defendant and his wife owned “substantial” property and other significant assets in the
28
DOJ-OGR-00020091
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document