DOJ-OGR-00020371.jpg
564 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (government response to motion for pretrial relief)
File Size:
564 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Case 21-58, Document 92) dated May 27, 2021. It outlines the 'Applicable Law' regarding pretrial detention, specifically citing 18 U.S.C. § 3142. The text argues that for offenses involving minor victims (18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423), there is a statutory presumption that no conditions will assure the defendant's appearance, placing a burden of production on the defendant to prove they are not a flight risk.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention hearing; referred to with the pronoun 'her' in paragraph 23 (likely Ghislaine Maxwell given ...
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Entity seeking pretrial detention and bearing the burden of proof.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Referenced in case citations (2d Cir.)
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00020371)
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Government seeks pretrial detention against the defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"“renewed motion for pretrial relief,” is both procedurally improper and substantively meritless. It should be denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020371.jpg
Quote #1
"When seeking pretrial detention, the Government bears the burden of showing... that the defendant poses a risk of flight"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020371.jpg
Quote #2
"Where the defendant is charged with certain offenses, including offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, a statutory presumption arises 'that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required...'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020371.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,324 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 92, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page13 of 24
“renewed motion for pretrial relief,” is both procedurally improper and substantively
meritless. It should be denied.
meritless. It should be denied.
A. Applicable Law
23. When seeking pretrial detention, the Government bears the
burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant poses a
risk of flight, and that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably
assure her presence in court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); United States v. Sabhnani,
493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).
burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant poses a
risk of flight, and that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably
assure her presence in court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); United States v. Sabhnani,
493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).
24. Where the defendant is charged with certain offenses, including
offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, a statutory
presumption arises “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably
assure the appearance of the person as required . . . .” 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. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436
(2d Cir. 2001).
offenses involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 or 2423, a statutory
presumption arises “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably
assure the appearance of the person as required . . . .” 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. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436
(2d Cir. 2001).
25. Where the Government seeks detention based on flight risk, the
court must consider: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged”; (2)
court must consider: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged”; (2)
13
DOJ-OGR-00020371
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document