DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
741 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / memorandum of law (government filing)
File Size:
741 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a legal brief filed by the Department of Justice, seemingly in relation to a detention hearing. The text argues that defendants charged with sex trafficking of minors (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423) face a presumption of detention because no conditions can assure their appearance or community safety. It cites various legal precedents (English, Mercedes, Petrov) to support the Government's position that the burden is on the defendant to rebut this presumption, and discusses the standards for reopening a detention hearing.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Unnamed in this specific page, but the subject of the detention argument; charged with offenses involving minor victi...
|
| English | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. English (2011).
|
| Mercedes | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Mercedes (2001).
|
| Petrov | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Petrov (2015).
|
| Rowe | Legal Precedent |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Rowe (2003).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Document source (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR-00020070) and likely the filing party (Government).
|
|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Jurisdiction mentioned in case citations.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) |
Appellate court mentioned in case citations.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for the cited legal precedents.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.’"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
Quote #2
"The act of producing such evidence, however, “does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020070.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,163 characters)
Case 1:20-cv-00830-AJN Document 100-2 Filed 06/22/20 Page 10 of 36
Additionally, where, as here, a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, it shall be presumed, subject to rebuttal, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). In such a case, “the defendant ‘bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose . . . a risk of flight.’” United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)). The act of producing such evidence, however, “does not eliminate the presumption favoring detention.” Id. Rather, the presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court,” while the Government retains the ultimate burden of demonstrating that the defendant presents a risk of flight. Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436.
When the Court has already issued a detention order, the Bail Reform Act provides that the detention hearing “may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance” of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Accordingly, “[a] court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk.” United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that “a release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing,” United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments “warrant
7
DOJ-OGR-00020070
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document