EFTA00024831.pdf
104 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email chain
File Size:
104 KB
Summary
This document is an email chain dated August 1, 2019, between US Attorneys in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The emails discuss a significant Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in *United States v. Boustani*, which ruled that wealthy defendants cannot use their financial resources to pay for 'private jails' (home confinement with private security) to secure bail when poorer defendants would be detained. This legal precedent was highly relevant to the Jeffrey Epstein case, as Epstein had attempted to secure bail under similar conditions shortly before this date.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jean Boustani | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Subject of the legal opinion United States v. Boustani cited in the email
|
| Redacted Senders/Recipients | Attorneys/Officials |
US Attorneys from USANYS (Southern District of NY) and USANYE (Eastern District of NY) discussing the legal precedent
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USANYS |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (sender/recipient domain)
|
|
| USANYE |
United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (sender/recipient domain)
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Issued the opinion discussed in the email
|
|
| USANYE-Brooklyn_Criminal_Attorneys |
Email distribution list
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-08-01
Second Circuit Court of Appeals issues opinion in United States v. Boustani
New York
Second Circuit Court
Boustani
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of USANYS, USANYE, and Second Circuit
|
Relationships (1)
USANYS Office
→
Professional/Collaborative
→
USANYE Office
Sharing legal precedents and internal emails regarding bail decisions.
Key Quotes (5)
"The Second Circuit today issued an opinion today that will affect bail motions in white collar cases and other cases where wealthy defendants seek to be released to home confinement and monitored by private security companies."Source
EFTA00024831.pdf
Quote #1
"Specifically, in United States v. Boustani (copy attached), the court held that the Bail Reform Act does not permit wealthy defendants to be released to 'self-funded private jails' in circumstances where poorer defendants would be detained"Source
EFTA00024831.pdf
Quote #2
"We now expressly hold that the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails."Source
EFTA00024831.pdf
Quote #3
"Such a two-tiered system would 'foster inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a very small cohort of criminal defendants who are extremely wealthy.'"Source
EFTA00024831.pdf
Quote #4
"Boustani is not permitted to avoid such a result by relying on his own financial resources to pay for a private jail."Source
EFTA00024831.pdf
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,200 characters)
From: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
[Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: FW: Second Circuit Bail Decision
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:05:58 +0000
Attachments: boustani.pdf; ATT00001.htm
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
[Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: FW: Second Circuit Bail Decision
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:05:58 +0000
Attachments: boustani.pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:05 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: Fwd: Second Circuit Bail Decision
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:05 AM
To: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Cc: [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>; [Redacted] (USANYS) <[Redacted]>
Subject: Fwd: Second Circuit Bail Decision
[Redacted]
Begin forwarded message:
From: "[Redacted] (USANYE) 12" <[Redacted]>
Date: August 1, 2019 at 11:01:20 AM EDT
To: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Fwd: Second Circuit Bail Decision
Date: August 1, 2019 at 11:01:20 AM EDT
To: "[Redacted] (USANYS)" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Fwd: Second Circuit Bail Decision
FYI
Begin forwarded message:
From: "[Redacted] (USANYE)" <[Redacted]>
Date: August 1, 2019 at 10:56:49 AM EDT
To: USANYE-Brooklyn_Criminal_Attorneys <[Redacted]>
Cc: "[Redacted] (USANYE)" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Second Circuit Bail Decision
Date: August 1, 2019 at 10:56:49 AM EDT
To: USANYE-Brooklyn_Criminal_Attorneys <[Redacted]>
Cc: "[Redacted] (USANYE)" <[Redacted]>
Subject: Second Circuit Bail Decision
The Second Circuit today issued an opinion today that will affect bail motions in white collar cases and other cases where wealthy defendants seek to be released to home confinement and monitored by private security companies. Specifically, in United States v. Boustani (copy attached), the court held that the Bail Reform Act does not permit wealthy defendants to be released to "self-funded private jails" in circumstances where poorer defendants would be detained:
"We now expressly hold that the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails. It is a fundamental principle of fairness that the law protects 'the interests of rich and poor criminals in equal scale, and its hand extends as far to each.' To interpret the Bail Reform Act as requiring district courts to permit wealthy defendants to employ privately funded armed guards where an otherwise similarly situated defendant without means would be detained would violate this core principle. Such a two-tiered system would 'foster inequity and unequal treatment in favor of a very small cohort of criminal defendants who are extremely wealthy.'"
Slip op. at 7
The court recognized one potential exception to this principle, i.e., "where the defendant is deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth. In other words, a defendant may be released on such a condition only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained." Id. But it appears that this exception is a narrow one, since the district court in Boustani cited the defendant's wealth as "one of many factors" but "did not rely primarily on Boustani's personal wealth in finding that he posed a flight risk." Slip op. at 9. Thus, because "[a] similarly situated defendant of lesser means surely would be detained pending trial, ... Boustani is not permitted to avoid such a result by relying on his own financial resources to pay for a private jail."
I do not expect that this opinion will be the last word on this issue, but it is now the governing law in the Second Circuit.
EFTA00024831
EFTA00024832
EFTA00024832
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document