DOJ-OGR-00001628.jpg
505 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
505 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from July 13, 2020, argues against a defendant's motion for temporary release. It cites two prior rulings from the Southern District of New York (involving Gonzalez and Eley) to establish that release is not necessary, especially when trials are not imminent. The document further contends that the detention center (MDC) has been responsive and accommodating to defense counsel's requests for client access, undermining the argument that release is required for defense preparation.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MDC | government agency |
Referred to as a detention center that has been responsive to defense counsel's requests for client access.
|
| United States | government agency |
Named as the plaintiff in the case 'United States v. Eley'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The MDC provided defense counsel with access to their client within three hours of a request made 'earlier this week' relative to the document's filing date.
MDC
defense counsel
defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, the court where the cited cases were heard.
|
Relationships (1)
defense counsel
→
professional
→
defendant
The document describes the defense counsel's efforts to gain access to their client at the MDC for trial preparation.
Key Quotes (2)
"Gonzalez fails to demonstrate that temporary release is ‘necessary’ for the preparation of his defense because, among other things, his trial is not scheduled for another five months."Source
— Court (S.D.N.Y.)
(Quoted from a court decision on April 20, 2020, explaining the denial of Gonzalez's request for release.)
DOJ-OGR-00001628.jpg
Quote #1
"Defendant’s request for release is not compelled under the Sixth Amendment; with trial scheduled for nine months from now, this case is distinguishable from other instances in which an imminent evidentiary hearing may support a defendant’s temporary release."Source
— Court (S.D.N.Y.)
(Quoted from the United States v. Eley case decision on April 7, 2020, used as precedent.)
DOJ-OGR-00001628.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,333 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 22 Filed 07/13/20 Page 18 of 19
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020) (“Gonzalez fails to demonstrate that temporary release is ‘necessary’ for the preparation of his defense because, among other things, his trial is not scheduled for another five months.”); United States v. Eley, No. 20 Cr. 78 (AT), 2020 WL 1689773, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2020) (“Defendant’s request for release is not compelled under the Sixth Amendment; with trial scheduled for nine months from now, this case is distinguishable from other instances in which an imminent evidentiary hearing may support a defendant’s temporary release.”).
In fact, the defendant’s own motion makes clear that the MDC has been responsive to defense counsel’s concerns and has ensured that they have access to their client. As their motion notes, the MDC provided defense counsel with access to their client within three hours of a request earlier this week, despite having zero notice and receiving the request after close of business in the evening. See Opposition Memorandum at 12. For non-emergencies, defense counsel can avail themselves of the scheduling system that has been instituted at the MDC to request regular calls with their client and will be able to coordinate with MDC legal counsel should an urgent need arise.
17
DOJ-OGR-00001628
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document