DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court order/opinion excerpt)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's reasoning for detaining the defendant pending trial, citing flight risk, the insufficiency of home security/electronic monitoring, and rejecting arguments regarding COVID-19 risks. It also outlines the 'Applicable Law' under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.) regarding the standards for pretrial detention.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant' throughout the text; identified via Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Referred to as 'the Court'; identified via case number suffix AJN.
|
| Boustani | Cited Case Subject |
Cited in United States v. Boustani regarding bail law.
|
| Sabhani | Cited Case Subject |
Cited in United States v. Sabhani regarding bail law.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court |
Judicial body issuing the order (SDNY).
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution bearing the burden of proof.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Relationships (1)
Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial.
Key Quotes (4)
"the Court concluded that electronic monitoring and home security guards “would be insufficient” because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
Quote #1
"the Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of preparing a defense with an incarcerated client."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
Quote #2
"the Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
Quote #3
"The Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered... (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person’s “character . . . [and] financial resources.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002170(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,077 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 9 of 36
the Court concluded that electronic monitoring and home security guards “would be insufficient”
because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards. (Tr. 87-88). Finally,
the Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of
preparing a defense with an incarcerated client. In so doing, the Court noted that the defendant
has no underlying conditions that place her at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19
and emphasized that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Tr. 89-90).
because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards. (Tr. 87-88). Finally,
the Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of
preparing a defense with an incarcerated client. In so doing, the Court noted that the defendant
has no underlying conditions that place her at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19
and emphasized that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Tr. 89-90).
Viewing all of these factors together, the Court ordered the defendant detained pending
trial. (Tr. 91).
trial. (Tr. 91).
APPLICABLE LAW
Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to
order a defendant detained pending trial upon a determination that the defendant poses a risk of
flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). When seeking detention on this ground, “[t]he Government bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant ‘presents an actual
risk of flight’ and that ‘no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the
defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.’” United States v. Boustani, 932
F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)). The
Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered in the detention analysis when the Government
seeks detention based on flight risk: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2)
the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the
defendant, including the person’s “character . . . [and] financial resources.” See 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g). If a judicial officer concludes that “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required . . . such judicial officer shall order the
detention of the person before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
order a defendant detained pending trial upon a determination that the defendant poses a risk of
flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). When seeking detention on this ground, “[t]he Government bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant ‘presents an actual
risk of flight’ and that ‘no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the
defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.’” United States v. Boustani, 932
F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)). The
Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered in the detention analysis when the Government
seeks detention based on flight risk: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2)
the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the
defendant, including the person’s “character . . . [and] financial resources.” See 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g). If a judicial officer concludes that “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required . . . such judicial officer shall order the
detention of the person before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
6
DOJ-OGR-00002170
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document