DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
772 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
6
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (page 31 of 36)
File Size:
772 KB
Summary
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text argues against the defendant's release by distinguishing her case from precedents where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and aligning it with cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho, and a 2001 case United States v. Epstein). The 'United States v. Epstein' cited here refers to a 2001 case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania involving a defendant with German/Brazilian dual citizenship, used here as legal precedent for denying bail based on lack of extradition treaties.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Subject of Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number); the court is analyzing her flight risk compared to precedents.
|
| Khashoggi | Defendant in cited case law |
United States v. Khashoggi (1989); cited as a distinguishable case where defendant was released pending trial.
|
| Bodmer | Defendant in cited case law |
United States v. Bodmer (2004); cited as a distinguishable case regarding bail conditions.
|
| Boustani | Defendant in cited case law |
United States v. Boustani (2019); cited as support for detention due to flight risk.
|
| Patrick Ho | Defendant in cited case law |
United States v. Patrick Ho (2018); cited as support for detention based on flight risk and foreign ties.
|
| Epstein | Defendant in cited case law |
United States v. Epstein (2001); cited as precedent for detention based on dual citizenship (Germany/Brazil) and lack...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., E.D. Pa. mentioned in citations
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution in the various cited cases
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (6 events)
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for arraignments and ties analysis
|
|
|
Location related to Khashoggi extradition waiver
|
|
|
Country of citizenship for defendant in U.S. v. Epstein (2001)
|
|
|
Country of citizenship/non-extradition for defendant in U.S. v. Epstein (2001)
|
Relationships (2)
The Defendant (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)
→
Legal Comparison (Distinguishable)
→
Khashoggi / Bodmer
Court states 'several of the cases cited by the defendant are readily distinguishable'
The Defendant (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)
→
Legal Comparison (Comparable)
→
Boustani / Ho / Epstein (2001)
Court states 'there is support in the case law for detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant'
Key Quotes (5)
"Government—whose argument was 'based, in large part, on speculation' as to the defendant’s financial resources—had 'failed to meet its burden'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
Quote #1
"ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk of flight based on several factors"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
Quote #2
"extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
Quote #3
"lack of meaningful community ties, and 'potential ties in foreign jurisdictions'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
Quote #4
"finding that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,296 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 31 of 36
(Tr. 87). Following the analysis the Court has already conducted, several of the cases cited by the
defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048,
1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other
things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that
he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s Government
committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS),
2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant
arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the
Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s
financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”). And there is support in the case law for
detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v.
Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir.
Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk
of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible
sentence, strength of Government’s evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent
international travel, “minimal” ties to the United States, and “extensive ties to foreign countries
without extradition”); United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant’s risk of flight and citing the strength of
the Government’s evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and “potential ties in foreign
jurisdictions”); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding
that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property
interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the
fact that defendant and his wife owned “substantial” property and other significant assets in the
defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048,
1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other
things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that
he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s Government
committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS),
2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant
arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the
Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s
financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”). And there is support in the case law for
detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v.
Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir.
Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk
of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible
sentence, strength of Government’s evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent
international travel, “minimal” ties to the United States, and “extensive ties to foreign countries
without extradition”); United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant’s risk of flight and citing the strength of
the Government’s evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and “potential ties in foreign
jurisdictions”); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding
that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property
interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the
fact that defendant and his wife owned “substantial” property and other significant assets in the
28
DOJ-OGR-00002192
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document