DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
745 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
745 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court order from March 22, 2021, reaffirming the decision to detain a defendant. The Court concludes that the Government has shown the defendant is a flight risk and that no proposed conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. The Court's assessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including the presumption of detention and the weight of the evidence, remains unchanged despite the defendant's new arguments.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the court's detention order, argued to be a flight risk.
|
| Mercedes |
Mentioned in a case citation (Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436) regarding the presumption of detention.
|
|
| Martir |
Mentioned in a case citation (Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144) regarding the presumption of detention and flight risk.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, which has argued for the Defendant's detention.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body making the determination about the Defendant's detention.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as having found that certain offenders pose special risks of flight.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears as part of a document identifier in the footer (DOJ-OGR-00001279).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-03-22
The Court reaffirmed its decision to detain the Defendant, concluding she remains a flight risk and that no conditions are sufficient to assure her appearance.
Relationships (1)
The document details a legal proceeding where the Government is arguing for the detention of the Defendant, who is arguing for her release.
Key Quotes (4)
"remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court."Source
— Court (quoting Mercedes case)
(Describing how the presumption in favor of detention is treated even after the defendant meets their burden of production.)
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
Quote #1
"that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance."Source
— Court (quoting Martir case)
(Explaining the rationale behind the presumption of detention for certain offenses.)
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
Quote #2
"raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment,"Source
— Defendant
(Part of the Defendant's argument that pre-trial motions weaken the evidence against her.)
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength"Source
— Defendant
(The Defendant's contention regarding the impact of pre-trial motions on the government's case.)
DOJ-OGR-00001279.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,189 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1692 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 12
Court’s view has not changed. The Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant presents a risk of flight and that there are no set of conditions, including the Defendant’s third set of proposed conditions, that are sufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all continue to support that conclusion. The Defendant’s proposed conditions do not alter the Court’s determination.
A. The Court’s assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors has not changed
To begin with, the presumption in favor of detention continues to apply with equal force. See Dkt. No. 106 (“Dec. Op.”) at 7–8. And though the Court again concludes that the Defendant has met her burden of production, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful “that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance.” Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).
The Court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors also remains unchanged. Because the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged include crimes involving a minor victim, the first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factor continues to weigh strongly in favor of detention. And the Court remains of the opinion that the Defendant does not pose a danger to any person or to the community. The fourth § 3142(g) factor thus weighs against detention.
With respect to the second § 3142(g) factor, none of the Defendant’s new arguments alter the Court’s conclusion as to the weight of the evidence. The Defendant argues that the pre-trial motions “raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of charges, if not the entire indictment,” and she contends that “[t]hese motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength
6
DOJ-OGR-00001279
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document