DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
555 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (appellate brief/motion response)
File Size:
555 KB
Summary
This document is page 22 of a legal filing dated May 27, 2021, arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for release. The text asserts that Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion in detaining Maxwell as a flight risk and highlights Maxwell's extensive access to discovery materials via computers (13 hours/day) and legal counsel via video calls (25 hours/week) at the MDC.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of detention order; described as a flight risk.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge (District Court) |
The judge who originally detained Maxwell and denied temporary release.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Detention center where Maxwell is held.
|
Relationships (2)
Judge Nathan committed clear error when detaining Maxwell
review discovery with her attorneys during the 25 hours of legal video-teleconference calls
Key Quotes (3)
"Nothing in the renewed motion undermines Judge Nathan’s conclusion that Maxwell poses a real risk of flight."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
Quote #1
"Simply put, the renewed motion fails to present any “compelling” reason for this Court to reverse its prior decision in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell has exclusive access to both a desktop and a laptop computer on which to review her discovery, thirteen hours per day, seven days per week."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001462.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,258 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 73, 05/27/2021, 3109708, Page22 of 24
38. The only question even arguably before this Court at this juncture is whether Judge Nathan committed clear error when detaining Maxwell as a flight risk or abused her discretion when denying Maxwell temporary release. Nothing in the renewed motion undermines Judge Nathan’s conclusion that Maxwell poses a real risk of flight. Nor does the renewed motion explain how Judge Nathan’s careful consideration of the MDC’s nighttime security protocols and continued monitoring of Maxwell’s ability to access her discovery and communicate with counsel transforms the denial of pretrial release into an abuse of discretion. Simply put, the renewed motion fails to present any “compelling” reason for this Court to reverse its prior decision in this case. Plugh, 648 F.3d at 123.
to review her discovery. (See, e.g., Dkt. 235 at 7 n.4; Dkt. 196 at 1-2). Among other things, Maxwell has exclusive access to both a desktop and a laptop computer on which to review her discovery, thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. She is also able to review discovery with her attorneys during the 25 hours of legal video-teleconference calls she receives each week. (See Dkt. 196 at 1-2).
22
22
DOJ-OGR-00001462
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document