DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
711 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal ruling
File Size:
711 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's decision to deny the Defendant's renewed motion for bail, citing the Bail Reform Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The ruling establishes a presumption in favor of detention because the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and notes that the Grand Jury indictment provides sufficient probable cause for this presumption.
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case header and federal statutes cited.
|
|
| Grand Jury |
Returned the indictment establishing probable cause.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
|
| 1st Cir. |
First Circuit Court of Appeals (cited in case law).
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court accordingly denies Defendant’s request to reopen the original bail hearing and denies her renewed motion for bail."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
Quote #1
"The Court is required to presume that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
Quote #2
"if a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, 'it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
Quote #3
"The Defendant’s indictment by a grand jury suffices to establish that there is probable cause to believe that she committed the offenses charged in the indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002239(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,096 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 7 of 22
detention without bail is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Court accordingly denies
Defendant’s request to reopen the original bail hearing and denies her renewed motion for bail.
Defendant’s request to reopen the original bail hearing and denies her renewed motion for bail.
A. The presumption in favor of detention applies
The Court is required to presume that no condition or combination of conditions of
pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance. The Bail Reform Act
provides that if a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, “it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the
community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person
committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The Defendant’s indictment by a grand jury suffices to
establish that there is probable cause to believe that she committed the offenses charged in the
indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 53–54 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting that
that an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury “conclusively determines the
existence of probable cause” and that “the return of an indictment eliminates the need for a
preliminary examination at which a probable cause finding is made by a judicial officer pursuant
to Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” (citations omitted)). In light of the
crimes charged in the indictment, the Court begins with the presumption that no condition or
combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance.
pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance. The Bail Reform Act
provides that if a defendant is charged with committing an offense involving a minor victim
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, “it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the
community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person
committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The Defendant’s indictment by a grand jury suffices to
establish that there is probable cause to believe that she committed the offenses charged in the
indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 53–54 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting that
that an indictment returned by a properly constituted grand jury “conclusively determines the
existence of probable cause” and that “the return of an indictment eliminates the need for a
preliminary examination at which a probable cause finding is made by a judicial officer pursuant
to Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” (citations omitted)). In light of the
crimes charged in the indictment, the Court begins with the presumption that no condition or
combination of conditions of pretrial release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance.
When the presumption applies, the Defendant bears a limited burden of production
“tending to counter the § 3142(e) presumption of flight,” Contreras, 776 F.2d at 53 n.1. The
Defendant’s burden of production only requires that she “introduce a certain amount of evidence
contrary to the presumed fact.” United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 380 (1st Cir. 1985),
“tending to counter the § 3142(e) presumption of flight,” Contreras, 776 F.2d at 53 n.1. The
Defendant’s burden of production only requires that she “introduce a certain amount of evidence
contrary to the presumed fact.” United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 380 (1st Cir. 1985),
7
DOJ-OGR-00002239
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document