DOJ-OGR-00019843.jpg
638 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
638 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal memorandum of law, dated April 1, 2021, related to Case 21-58. The page first outlines the 'Standard of Review' for bail decisions, citing precedents from 'United States v. Horton' and 'United States v. Shakur'. It then begins an argument that defendant Ghislaine Maxwell should be released because her confinement conditions prevent her from effectively preparing her defense.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Horton | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Horton, 653 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2016)'.
|
| Shakur | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)'.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in the heading 'Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i) because she cannot effectively prepare ...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal cases 'United States v. Horton' and 'United States v. Shakur'.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced generally as 'This Court', 'district court', and 'appellate court' throughout the 'STANDARD OF REVIEW' sec...
|
Key Quotes (2)
"may be subject to plenary review if it rests on a predicate finding which reflects a misperception of a legal rule applicable to the particular factor involved."Source
— United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)
(Quoted to explain the standard of review for a district court's ultimate finding on a bail package.)
DOJ-OGR-00019843.jpg
Quote #1
"even if the court’s finding of a historical fact relevant to that factor is not clearly erroneous, [the appellate court] may reverse if the court evinces a misunderstanding of the legal significance of that historical fact and if that misunderstanding infects the court’s ultimate finding."Source
— Shakur, 817 F.2d at 197
(Quoted to further elaborate on the conditions under which an appellate court can reverse a lower court's finding.)
DOJ-OGR-00019843.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,300 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page15 of 31
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The question of whether a bail package will reasonably assure the
defendant’s presence is a mixed question of law and fact. United States
v. Horton, 653 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2016). This Court reviews the
district court’s purely factual findings for clear error. Id. However, the
district court’s ultimate finding “may be subject to plenary review if it
rests on a predicate finding which reflects a misperception of a legal
rule applicable to the particular factor involved.” Id. at 319–20 (quoting
United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)). That is,
“even if the court’s finding of a historical fact relevant to that factor is
not clearly erroneous, [the appellate court] may reverse if the court
evinces a misunderstanding of the legal significance of that historical
fact and if that misunderstanding infects the court’s ultimate finding.”
Shakur, 817 F.2d at 197.
defendant’s presence is a mixed question of law and fact. United States
v. Horton, 653 F. App’x 46, 47 (2d Cir. 2016). This Court reviews the
district court’s purely factual findings for clear error. Id. However, the
district court’s ultimate finding “may be subject to plenary review if it
rests on a predicate finding which reflects a misperception of a legal
rule applicable to the particular factor involved.” Id. at 319–20 (quoting
United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)). That is,
“even if the court’s finding of a historical fact relevant to that factor is
not clearly erroneous, [the appellate court] may reverse if the court
evinces a misunderstanding of the legal significance of that historical
fact and if that misunderstanding infects the court’s ultimate finding.”
Shakur, 817 F.2d at 197.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Ghislaine Maxwell should be released under §3142(i)
because she cannot effectively prepare her defense
under the horrific conditions she is facing.
because she cannot effectively prepare her defense
under the horrific conditions she is facing.
Trying to defend against exceedingly old, anonymous allegations
is hard enough. Doing so while in de facto solitary confinement without
is hard enough. Doing so while in de facto solitary confinement without
13
DOJ-OGR-00019843
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document