DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
617 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (letter brief)
File Size:
617 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 24) from July 16, 2019, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case 1:19-cr-00490). The text argues for the defendant's right to bail, contending that denying bail based on wealth violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It cites specific case law (Brinson, Afyare, Gardner) to argue that the presumption against release in § 1591 prosecutions is rebuttable.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Richard M. Berman | Judge (Honorable) |
Recipient of the legal filing/letter.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant (Implied) |
Implied defendant in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, subject of the bail argument regarding 'wealthy defendants'.
|
| Brinson | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in footnote 3: US v. Brinson.
|
| Afyare | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in footnote 3: US v. Afyare.
|
| Gardner | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in footnote 3: US v. Gardner.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| US District Court |
Jurisdiction implied by case citations and 'Hon.' title.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2019-07-16
Filing of Document 24 in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
US District Court (SDNY implied by case number)
Richard M. Berman
Defense Counsel
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Northern District of Oklahoma (cited in footnote).
|
|
|
Middle District of Tennessee (cited in footnote).
|
|
|
Northern District of California (cited in footnote).
|
Relationships (1)
Berman is addressed as the Judge in the case filing for case 1:19-cr-00490 (Epstein's case).
Key Quotes (4)
"That cannot be the law. Such a construction turns the statute’s plain text... on its head."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
Quote #1
"It violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
Quote #2
"wealthy defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly shouldn’t be singled out for worse treatment – in effect, categorically disqualified from bail... on the basis of their net worth."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
Quote #3
"the presumption is hardly an insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000447.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,354 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 9
Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 3
July 16, 2019
Page 3
That cannot be the law. Such a construction turns the statute’s
plain text – expressly providing that the presumption is “[s]ubject to
rebuttal,” and otherwise mandating bail on the “least restrictive”
conditions that reasonably assure the defendant’s presence and
community safety – on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the
presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal
protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail – all
based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy
defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly
shouldn’t be singled out for worse treatment – in effect, categorically
disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case – on the basis of
their net worth.
plain text – expressly providing that the presumption is “[s]ubject to
rebuttal,” and otherwise mandating bail on the “least restrictive”
conditions that reasonably assure the defendant’s presence and
community safety – on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the
presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal
protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail – all
based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy
defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly
shouldn’t be singled out for worse treatment – in effect, categorically
disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case – on the basis of
their net worth.
Second, it bears emphasis that the presumption is hardly an
insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.³ To the contrary,
insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.³ To the contrary,
_________________
³ E.g., US v. Brinson, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8,
2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011);
US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
³ E.g., US v. Brinson, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8,
2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011);
US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
DOJ-OGR-00000447
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document