DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate filing (page 6 of 30)
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This is page 6 of a legal brief filed on April 19, 2021, in Case 21-770 (United States v. Maxwell). The text argues that the lower court failed to ensure the reliability of the government's evidence during bail hearings, citing legal precedents *LaFontaine* and *Martir*. The defense contends that unlike the *Martir* case, Ms. Maxwell actively challenged the government's 'flimsy proffer' through multiple hearings, but the court accepted the government's claims 'blindly' and 'uncritically.'
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant / Appellant |
The document argues that, unlike the defendant in the Martir case, Maxwell challenged the government's evidence durin...
|
| Martir | Legal Precedent / Defendant in cited case |
Referenced in case law (United States v. Martir) regarding bail hearing standards.
|
| LaFontaine | Legal Precedent / Defendant in cited case |
Referenced in case law (United States v. LaFontaine) regarding the reliability of evidence in bail hearings.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
The opposing party whose 'flimsy proffer' was challenged by Maxwell.
|
|
| District Court / Lower Court |
Criticized in the brief for acting 'blindly, uncritically' and failing to put the Government to the test.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Listed in the footer (Office of Government Information Services).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Ms. Maxwell absolutely challenged the flimsy proffer from the initial bail hearing
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell absolutely challenged the flimsy proffer from the initial bail hearing through three renewals."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
Quote #1
"Instead of properly putting the Government to the test, the court blindly, uncritically, and"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
Quote #2
"Sounds familiar."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
Quote #3
"It then criticized the government’s proffer as stating in “the most general and conclusory terms what it hoped to provide,” for failing to submit any “independent evidence, such as tapes, documents, or photographs,”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001378.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,444 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 57, 04/19/2021, 3080288, Page6 of 30
occurred here. The LaFontaine Court explained that “while the
informality of bail hearings serves the demands of speed, the ... district
judge must also ensure the reliability of the evidence, ‘by selectively
insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence of evidentiary
sources where their accuracy is in question.’” Id. at 131 (quoting Martir,
782 F.2d at 1147). And in Martir, this Court recognized the “high stakes”
involved in a detention hearing and explained that the power afforded to
the lower courts “should always be exercised ‘with the recognition that a
pretrial detention hearing may restrict for a significant time the liberty
of a presumably innocent person.’” 782 F.2d at 1145 (internal citations
omitted). It then criticized the government’s proffer as stating in “the
most general and conclusory terms what it hoped to provide,” for failing
to submit any “independent evidence, such as tapes, documents, or
photographs,” and for failing to furnish any testimony or affidavits. Id. at
1147. Sounds familiar. Unlike Martir, where this Court found that it
could not reverse because the defense “did not challenge the proffer in any
way,” Ms. Maxwell absolutely challenged the flimsy proffer from the
initial bail hearing through three renewals. Instead of properly putting
the Government to the test, the court blindly, uncritically, and
informality of bail hearings serves the demands of speed, the ... district
judge must also ensure the reliability of the evidence, ‘by selectively
insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence of evidentiary
sources where their accuracy is in question.’” Id. at 131 (quoting Martir,
782 F.2d at 1147). And in Martir, this Court recognized the “high stakes”
involved in a detention hearing and explained that the power afforded to
the lower courts “should always be exercised ‘with the recognition that a
pretrial detention hearing may restrict for a significant time the liberty
of a presumably innocent person.’” 782 F.2d at 1145 (internal citations
omitted). It then criticized the government’s proffer as stating in “the
most general and conclusory terms what it hoped to provide,” for failing
to submit any “independent evidence, such as tapes, documents, or
photographs,” and for failing to furnish any testimony or affidavits. Id. at
1147. Sounds familiar. Unlike Martir, where this Court found that it
could not reverse because the defense “did not challenge the proffer in any
way,” Ms. Maxwell absolutely challenged the flimsy proffer from the
initial bail hearing through three renewals. Instead of properly putting
the Government to the test, the court blindly, uncritically, and
6
DOJ-OGR-00001378
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document