DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (government opposition to bail)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number). The text presents the prosecution's argument against granting bail, citing the defendant's wealth, foreign ties, and skill at hiding as flight risks. It argues that a 'privately funded jail' and GPS monitoring are insufficient to ensure appearance in court, citing legal precedents (Banki, Zarger, Benatar) to support the claim that electronic monitoring merely reduces a head start rather than preventing flight.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention argument; described as having financial means, foreign ties, and skill/willingness to live i...
|
| AJN | Judge |
Initials in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Judge Alison J. Nathan).
|
| Banki | Case Citation Subject |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Banki.
|
| Zarger | Case Citation Subject |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Zarger.
|
| Benatar | Case Citation Subject |
Defendant in cited case United States v. Benatar.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002190.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction cited).
|
|
| E.D.N.Y. |
Eastern District of New York (Court jurisdiction cited).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation of United States v. Banki regarding a naturalized citizen native to Iran.
|
Relationships (1)
Mentions 'defendant’s private security guards' and argues she has no personal stake in their company losing money.
Key Quotes (5)
"detention is warranted not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and willingness to live in hiding"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
Quote #1
"release to the equivalent of a 'privately funded jail' is not warranted here."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
Quote #2
"a GPS monitoring bracelet offers little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
Quote #3
"electronic monitoring is 'hardly foolproof.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
Quote #4
"Simply put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient to ensure that this defendant appears in court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002190(1).jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,116 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 29 of 36
only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained.” Id. Here, detention is warranted
not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and
willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and
the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant’s
private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There
is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which
she has no personal stake losing $1 million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape
conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a “privately funded jail” is
not warranted here. Id. at 83.
not only because of the defendant’s financial means, but also her foreign ties, her skill at and
willingness to live in hiding, the nature of the offense resulting in a presumption of detention, and
the strength of the evidence, among other factors. The defense suggestion that the defendant’s
private security guards should post cash in support of a bond does not change this calculus. There
is no reason to believe that the defendant would be at all troubled by a security company in which
she has no personal stake losing $1 million, especially if that sacrifice meant she could escape
conviction and sentencing. Accordingly, release to the equivalent of a “privately funded jail” is
not warranted here. Id. at 83.
Relatedly, as the Court previously recognized (Tr. 87-88), a GPS monitoring bracelet offers
little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to
prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic
monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v.
Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen
who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20
years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F.
App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention
with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v.
Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply
put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient
to ensure that this defendant appears in court.
little value for a defendant who poses such a significant flight risk because it is does nothing to
prevent the defendant’s flight once it has been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic
monitoring would reduce a defendant’s head start after cutting the bracelet. See United States v.
Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010) (denying bail to a naturalized citizen
who was native to Iran, who was single and childless and who faced a statutory maximum of 20
years’ imprisonment, and noting that electronic monitoring is “hardly foolproof.”), aff’d, 369 F.
App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant’s application for bail in part because home detention
with electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”); United States v.
Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) (same). Simply
put, no bail conditions, including those proposed in the Renewed Bail Motion, would be sufficient
to ensure that this defendant appears in court.
26
DOJ-OGR-00002190
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document