DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
601 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief
File Size:
601 KB
Summary
A page from a legal filing (Case 21-58) dated April 1, 2021, arguing against the Government's position that Ms. Maxwell is a flight risk solely based on statutory maximum penalties. The defense cites Second Circuit precedents (Friedman, Sabhnani) to establish that a potential long sentence is insufficient grounds for detention without further evidence of flight risk.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal argument regarding flight risk and detention.
|
| Four anonymous accusers | Accusers/Witnesses |
Mentioned regarding the evidence against Maxwell.
|
| Friedman | Defendant (Case Precedent) |
Cited in United States v. Friedman regarding flight risk standards.
|
| Sabhnani | Defendant (Case Precedent) |
Cited in Sabhnani regarding reversal of detention orders.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The prosecution arguing for detention based on statutory maximums.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose precedents are cited.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (1)
Government argues she poses a flight risk; document argues against Government's position.
Key Quotes (3)
"Recognizing this weakness, the Government relies on the statutory maximum penalty to argue that the case is serious and that Ms. Maxwell poses a risk of flight."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
Quote #1
"But the statutory maximum is hardly relevant to determine risk of flight."Source
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
Quote #2
"Even if there were evidence to back up the four anonymous accusers, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potential long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00019851.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,245 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page23 of 31
Recognizing this weakness, the Government relies on the statutory maximum penalty to argue that the case is serious and that Ms. Maxwell poses a risk of flight. But the statutory maximum is hardly relevant to determine risk of flight. In the vast majority of federal cases, the statutory maximum penalties are sky-high and are not reflective of the real potential penalties. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1658(b) (statutory maximum of life imprisonment for turning off a light in a lighthouse to expose a ship to danger).
Even if there were evidence to back up the four anonymous accusers, the Second Circuit “require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potential long sentence to support a finding of risk of flight.” United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d. Cir. 1988) (district court’s finding that defendant posed a risk of flight was clearly erroneous, despite potential for “long sentence of incarceration”); Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76-77 (reversing detention order where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions, despite the fact that they faced a “lengthy term of incarceration”).
21
DOJ-OGR-00019851
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document