DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (identified by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and rejecting arguments that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (specifically relating to COVID-19 lockdowns and attorney access) violate her constitutional rights. The document notes that she has received significant time to review discovery compared to other inmates.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention order; deemed a flight risk; confined at MDC. (Contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based on case ...
|
| Defense Counsel | Attorneys |
Attorneys representing the defendant; instructed to confer with Government regarding discovery access.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
The entity issuing the order denying release.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MDC |
Metropolitan Detention Center; location of defendant's confinement.
|
|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; agency managing the detention facility and measures taken.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution; opposing the defendant's release.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-12-30
Recent (relative to Dec 2020)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Metropolitan Detention Center (prison where defendant is held).
|
Relationships (2)
Mentions communicating with attorneys and reviewing discovery.
Government opposes release; Defendant seeks release.
Key Quotes (5)
"the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Defendant’s proposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
Quote #2
"received 'more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her discovery'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
Quote #3
"conditions of confinement do not justify release"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
Quote #4
"recent lockdown due to COVID-19 that curtailed in-person legal visitations"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252(1).jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,068 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 20 of 22
In light of the above, the Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight and that the
Defendant’s proposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The
presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics
of the Defendant all support that conclusion, and none of Defendant’s new arguments change the
Court’s original determination.
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight and that the
Defendant’s proposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure her appearance. The
presumption in favor of detention, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics
of the Defendant all support that conclusion, and none of Defendant’s new arguments change the
Court’s original determination.
D. The Defendant’s conditions of confinement do not justify release
Lastly, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant’s argument that the conditions of her
confinement are uniquely onerous, interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and
thus justify release. See Def. Mot. at 35–38. Indeed, the Defendant does not meaningfully
dispute that she has received “more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her
discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys.” Gov’t Opp’n at
29. To the extent that the Defendant has concerns regarding some of the measures taken by
BOP, including a recent lockdown due to COVID-19 that curtailed in-person legal visitations,
the Defendant provides no authority to conclude that this, standing alone, violates her
constitutional right to participate in her defense. And while the Court acknowledges the
Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her confinement, the Defendant has failed to
provide any basis to conclude that release is warranted on those grounds—even after the Court
has determined that she continues to pose a flight risk.³
confinement are uniquely onerous, interfere with her ability to participate in her defense, and
thus justify release. See Def. Mot. at 35–38. Indeed, the Defendant does not meaningfully
dispute that she has received “more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her
discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys.” Gov’t Opp’n at
29. To the extent that the Defendant has concerns regarding some of the measures taken by
BOP, including a recent lockdown due to COVID-19 that curtailed in-person legal visitations,
the Defendant provides no authority to conclude that this, standing alone, violates her
constitutional right to participate in her defense. And while the Court acknowledges the
Defendant’s concerns regarding the conditions of her confinement, the Defendant has failed to
provide any basis to conclude that release is warranted on those grounds—even after the Court
has determined that she continues to pose a flight risk.³
³ The Court will continue to ensure that the Defendant has the ability to speak and meet regularly
with her attorneys and to review all necessary discovery materials to prepare for her defense.
Defense counsel shall confer with the Government on any specific requests. To the extent they
are not reasonably accommodated, an application may be made to the Court.
with her attorneys and to review all necessary discovery materials to prepare for her defense.
Defense counsel shall confer with the Government on any specific requests. To the extent they
are not reasonably accommodated, an application may be made to the Court.
20
DOJ-OGR-00002252
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document