DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed by the Government on April 12, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 21-770). The text argues against Maxwell's appeal regarding her bail denial, asserting that she poses a flight risk due to foreign ties and wealth, and defending the lower court's use of 'proffers' (evidence summaries) rather than full evidentiary hearings for bail determinations, citing Second Circuit precedents.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the bail hearing argument; accused of having international ties and lack of candor.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Judge whose previous ruling relies on Government proffers, now being challenged by Maxwell.
|
| LaFontaine | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. LaFontaine regarding bail proffers.
|
| Martir | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Martir regarding detention hearings.
|
| Cirillo | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case regarding bail proceedings.
|
| Abuhamra | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case regarding bail proceedings.
|
| Vondette | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case regarding bail proceedings.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Implied by '2d Cir.' citations and 'This Court'.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution/appellee arguing against Maxwell.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-04-12
Filing of legal document (Brief) in Case 21-770
US Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
General reference to Maxwell's connections.
|
|
|
Mentioned as an asset owned by Maxwell.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell argues Judge Nathan placed undue reliance on Government proffers.
Key Quotes (4)
"extraordinary capacity to evade detection."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell principally argues that Judge Nathan placed undue reliance on Government proffers in assessing the weight of the evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
Quote #2
"It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
Quote #3
"[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001335.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,523 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page18 of 25
international ties, multiple foreign citizenships, familial and personal connections
abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor
about her finances, and “extraordinary capacity to evade detection.” (Ex. D at 79-
91; Ex. H at 7-20; Ex. L at 6-11). Maxwell does not come close to identifying clear
error.
abroad, ownership of at least one foreign property of significant value, lack of candor
about her finances, and “extraordinary capacity to evade detection.” (Ex. D at 79-
91; Ex. H at 7-20; Ex. L at 6-11). Maxwell does not come close to identifying clear
error.
34. Maxwell principally argues that Judge Nathan placed undue
reliance on Government proffers in assessing the weight of the evidence. (Br. 19-
21). Not so. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in
the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine,
210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). “[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not
substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe
to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce it.”
Id.; see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (“a
detention hearing is not to serve as a mini-trial ... or as a discovery tool for the
defendant”). This Court has thus repeatedly upheld the Government’s ability to
proceed by proffer in bail proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, 149 F.
App’x 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7
(2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Vondette, 5 F. App’x 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2001); Martir,
782 F.2d at 1145.
reliance on Government proffers in assessing the weight of the evidence. (Br. 19-
21). Not so. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in
the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine,
210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). “[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not
substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe
to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce it.”
Id.; see also United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (“a
detention hearing is not to serve as a mini-trial ... or as a discovery tool for the
defendant”). This Court has thus repeatedly upheld the Government’s ability to
proceed by proffer in bail proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, 149 F.
App’x 40, 42-43 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7
(2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Vondette, 5 F. App’x 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2001); Martir,
782 F.2d at 1145.
18
DOJ-OGR-00001335
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document