DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
718 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
718 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from December 30, 2020, analyzes a defendant's motion for bail. The court acknowledges that the defendant has met the 'limited' burden of producing evidence (regarding financial conditions and family ties) to counter the presumption of being a flight risk. However, citing legal precedents like United States v. Mercedes and Martir, the court asserts that this presumption does not disappear and must still be weighed, concluding that the new information does not alter its initial determination regarding release conditions.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal analysis regarding flight risk and bail.
|
| O'Brien | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990)'.
|
| Mercedes | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)'.
|
| Martir | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as 'United States v. O'Brien' and 'United States v. Mercedes'.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as having found that certain offenders pose special risks of flight.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body making the determination in the document.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of the Defendant's family ties.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"limited"Source
— United States v. Mercedes
(Describing the burden of production on a defendant to rebut the presumption of flight risk.)
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
Quote #1
"remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court."Source
— United States v. Mercedes
(Explaining that the presumption of flight does not disappear entirely even after the defendant presents rebuttal evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
Quote #2
"[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind 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
— Martir
(Quoted to support the argument that the presumption of flight risk must still be given weight.)
DOJ-OGR-00002240.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,119 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 8 of 22
abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990). That burden is “limited.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Defendant’s proffer of evidence and information—including information relating to her financial conditions and her family ties to the United States, among other things—satisfies this limited burden. As the Court discussed at the July 14, 2020 hearing, these factors bear on the question of whether the Defendant poses a flight risk. And the evidence she advances in her renewed motion for bail reasonably disputes the presumption that she poses a flight risk. In that sense, this evidence is relevant to the ultimate determination and satisfies the relatively low threshold imposed by the burden of production.
The presumption of flight does not disappear entirely, however, and it “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, “[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind 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).
B. The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination
When determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, courts are required to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to
The presumption of flight does not disappear entirely, however, and it “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, “[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind 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).
B. The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination
When determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, courts are required to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to
8
DOJ-OGR-00002240
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document