DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
536 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
536 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a motion arguing for a defendant's release on bail. The defendant proposes a new, comprehensive $28.5 million bail package, secured by property and cash, and co-signed by her spouse, friends, and family. The proposed conditions also include home confinement with GPS monitoring, custody by a family member, and security services, all intended to mitigate the court's previous concerns about her being a flight risk.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the motion, proposing a new set of bail conditions.
|
| The Defendant's spouse | Spouse |
Mentioned as a co-signer for a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond.
|
| The Defendant's friends and family members | Co-signers |
Mentioned as co-signers for five additional bonds as part of the bail package.
|
| A family member | Third-party custodian |
Proposed to serve as the Defendant's third-party custodian upon release.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the cited cases United States v. Rowe and United States v. Petrov.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced throughout the document as the decision-making body regarding bail and detention.
|
| security company | company |
Mentioned as the entity that would post the sixth additional bond and provide security services to the Defendant duri...
|
Timeline (4 events)
2003-05-21
Court ruling in United States v. Rowe, No. 02-CR-756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846.
S.D.N.Y.
2015-03-26
Court ruling in United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886.
S.D.N.Y.
The Defendant filed a new motion proposing an expansive set of bail conditions to address the Court's concerns about flight risk.
Court
The original hearing where the Court determined that pretrial detention was warranted.
Court
The Defendant
The Court
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citations for United States v. Rowe and United States v. Petrov.
|
|
|
The geographical area to which the Defendant's travel would be restricted if released on bail.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states they would co-sign a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond.
The document states they would co-sign five additional bonds as part of the bail package.
Key Quotes (2)
"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
(Cited as legal precedent for the court's ability to revisit its own decisions.)
DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
Quote #1
"Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision"Source
— Court in United States v. Petrov
(Cited to support the court's authority to reconsider a prior bail decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00001214.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,205 characters)
Case: 20-07008-cgm Document 1062 Filed 06/30/20 Page 51 of 522
hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” A court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even where 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”).
In line with this, the Defendant’s new motion aims to address the reasons that the Court provided when it originally determined that no conditions could reasonably assure her appearance and that pretrial detention was warranted. First, the Defendant proposes a more expansive set of bail conditions that she claims addresses any concerns regarding risk of flight. The newly proposed conditions include a $28.5 million bail package, which consists of a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse and secured by approximately $8 million in property and $500,000 in cash, along with six additional bonds— five co-signed by the Defendant’s friends and family members and the sixth posted by the security company that would provide security services to the Defendant if she were granted bail and transferred to home confinement. See Def. Mot. at 2. The proposed conditions also provide that the Defendant would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as her third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i); that she would be placed in home confinement with GPS monitoring and that her travel would be restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and would be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with
5
DOJ-OGR-00001214
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document