DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
514 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 8 of 22)
File Size:
514 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text discusses the legal standards for bail and detention, specifically addressing 'flight risk' and the burden of production. While the court acknowledges the defendant met a limited burden regarding family ties and finances, section B explicitly states that 'The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination,' implying a denial of the renewed motion for bail based on factors including the nature of the offense (involving a minor victim).
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the bail hearing and flight risk assessment (Case context implies Ghislaine Maxwell)
|
| Judicial Officer | Judge |
Authority conducting the detention hearing
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
Plaintiff in referenced case law (United States v. Mercedes, etc.)
|
|
| Congress |
Cited regarding findings on flight risks of certain offenders
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedent
|
|
| 1st Cir. |
First Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedent
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of defendant's family ties mentioned as evidence
|
Relationships (1)
Implied by the nature of the criminal case and bail hearing context.
Key Quotes (4)
"The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
Quote #1
"Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant’s proffer of evidence... satisfies this limited burden."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
Quote #3
"Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001217.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,122 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 102 Filed 12/30/20 Page 8 of 22
abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990). That burden is “limited.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The Defendant’s proffer of evidence and information including information relating to her financial conditions and her family ties to the United States, among other things—satisfies this limited burden. As the Court discussed at the July 14, 2020 hearing, these factors bear on the question of whether the Defendant poses a flight risk. And the evidence she advances in her renewed motion for bail reasonably disputes the presumption that she poses a flight risk. In that sense, this evidence is relevant to the ultimate determination and satisfies the relatively low threshold imposed by the burden of production.
The presumption of flight does not disappear entirely, however, and it “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, “[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to give the presumption of flight some weight by keeping in mind that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that ‘a strong probability arises’ that no form of conditional release will be adequate to secure their appearance.” Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (citation omitted).
B. The new information does not alter the Court’s initial determination
When determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, courts are required to consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Thus, the Court considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense involves a minor victim, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the defendant’s history and characteristics, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to
8
DOJ-OGR-00001217
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document