DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
527 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
527 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the court should reconsider Ms. Maxwell's bail application based on new evidence. It cites legal precedents affirming the court's authority to reconsider such decisions and states that Ms. Maxwell has received over 2.7 million pages of discovery from the government since her initial hearing, which allegedly raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Nathan, J. | Judge |
Cited for reconsidering a bail decision based on new evidence and COVID-19 concerns.
|
| Lee | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Lee.
|
| Bradshaw | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Bradshaw.
|
| Rowe | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Rowe.
|
| Petrov | Defendant |
Defendant in the cited case United States v. Petrov.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the bail application, who has obtained new information and evidence since her initial detention hearing.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| BOP | Government agency |
Mentioned in relation to concerns about a possible outbreak of COVID-19 in its facilities.
|
| United States | Government |
The plaintiff in several cited legal cases (United States v. Lee, United States v. Bradshaw, United States v. Rowe, U...
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The document discusses the Court's inherent authority to reconsider its own decisions, specifically bail decisions.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Initial detention hearing for Ms. Maxwell.
The government produced voluminous discovery (over 2.7 million pages) to Ms. Maxwell and her counsel.
Ms. Maxwell is presenting a bail application for the Court's consideration.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, where the case United States v. Lee was heard.
|
|
|
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas, where the case United States v. Bradshaw was heard.
|
|
|
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the cases United States v. Rowe and Uni...
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government'.
The government is the prosecuting party against Ms. Maxwell, providing discovery in her criminal case.
Key Quotes (4)
"could have not have martialed"Source
— Unnamed defendant in United States v. Lee
(Describing evidence that a defendant was unable to present in the short time between indictment and the original hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
Quote #1
"[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
(A quote establishing the court's authority to reconsider a release order.)
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
Quote #2
"Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision"Source
— Court in United States v. Petrov
(A quote noting the court's power to reconsider its own bail decisions.)
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
Quote #3
"material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release"Source
— § 3142(f)
(A legal requirement for new evidence to be considered in a bail hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00020028.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,172 characters)
Case: 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 302 Filed 06/25/20 Page 8 of 42
(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government’s
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in
BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M.
2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense
that defendant “could have not have martialed” in the 17 days between his indictment and the
original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when
the change was within the defendant’s control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-
04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant
decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).
In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision.
“[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. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
“[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. Rowe, No. 02 CR.
756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v.
Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting
“Court’s inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court’s previous bail decision”).
Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have
also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7
million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions
about the strength of the government’s case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the
Court’s consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.
It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
§ 3142(f): that it have a “material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release
8
DOJ-OGR-00020028
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document