DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
710 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing (us district court)
File Size:
710 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a court order filed on December 30, 2020, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for release, reaffirming that she presents a flight risk and determining that her conditions of confinement at the MDC (including COVID-19 lockdowns) do not violate her constitutional rights or justify release. The text notes that the Defendant has received more time than other inmates to review discovery and communicate with counsel.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the detention order; deemed a flight risk (Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Issued the order denying release
|
| Defense counsel | Attorneys |
Instructed to confer with Government regarding discovery and meetings
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Opposed the defendant's release
|
|
| MDC |
Metropolitan Detention Center; where the defendant is confined
|
|
| BOP |
Bureau of Prisons; implemented COVID-19 measures
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-12-30
Court filing denying release based on flight risk and conditions of confinement
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Metropolitan Detention Center (prison facility)
|
Relationships (2)
Mentions ability to communicate with her attorneys and review discovery
Government opposes release; Def. Mot. vs Gov't Opp'n
Key Quotes (3)
"the Court again concludes that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
Quote #1
"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.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
Quote #2
"the Defendant provides no authority to conclude that this, standing alone, violates her constitutional right to participate in her defense."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002252.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,087 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.
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.
20
DOJ-OGR-00002252
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document