DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
737 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court document)
File Size:
737 KB
Summary
This is page 22 of a legal filing (Document 100) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on December 18, 2020. The text argues that the defendant represents a significant flight risk because extradition from the UK or France is legally complex, lengthy, and not guaranteed, even if the defendant currently waives her rights to challenge it. The prosecution cites case law (Namer, Cilins, Abdullahu) to support the argument that the difficulty of extradition supports continued detention pending trial.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the defendant' throughout the text; subject of the flight risk and extradition arguments (Case 1:20-c...
|
| Secretary of State | UK Government Official |
Mentioned as having discretion to deny extradition requests in the UK.
|
| Namer | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Namer regarding flight risk.
|
| Cilins | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in Cilins precedent regarding flight risk.
|
| Abdullahu | Case Citation Subject |
Cited in United States v. Abdullahu regarding flight risk.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Referred to as 'The Government'; arguing against the defendant's release.
|
|
| OIA |
Office of International Affairs; provided information to the prosecution regarding UK extradition difficulties.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case filing header.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction seeking extradition and prosecution.
|
|
|
Potential location for extradition; laws cited regarding extradition difficulties.
|
|
|
Potential location for extradition; laws cited regarding inability to waive extradition rights effectively.
|
Relationships (1)
The Government understands from OIA...
Key Quotes (5)
"The Government understands from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain, and subject to multiple levels of appeal."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the United Kingdom"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
Quote #2
"The defendant’s written waivers of extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant will not flee to a third country"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
Quote #3
"Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a defendant’s flight risk"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
Quote #4
"“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002183(1).jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,206 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 22 of 36
to authorities in the United States would not be binding in the United Kingdom, and the defendant
could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.
could easily decide not to consent to extradition once found abroad.
Further, a judge in the United Kingdom must make an independent decision on extradition
based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of
time, forum, and considerations of the individual’s mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at
§§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary
of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands
from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain,
and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately
successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.
based on the circumstances at the time the defendant is before the court, including the passage of
time, forum, and considerations of the individual’s mental or physical condition. See, e.g., id. at
§§ 82, 83A, & 91. Even if a final order of extradition has been entered by a court, the Secretary
of State still has the discretion to deny extradition. See id. at § 93. The Government understands
from OIA that extradition from the United Kingdom is frequently extensively litigated, uncertain,
and subject to multiple levels of appeal. Moreover, even where the process is ultimately
successful, it is lengthy and time-consuming.
Ultimately, although the defendant purports to be willing to waive her right to challenge
being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the
United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of
course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with
which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant’s written waivers of
extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant
will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be
impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a
defendant’s flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants
pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir.
Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433,
443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of
detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,
being extradited to the United States, she simply cannot do so under the laws of France and the
United Kingdom, and she would be free to fight extradition once in those countries. And, of
course, the defendant could choose to flee to another jurisdiction altogether, including one with
which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. The defendant’s written waivers of
extradition from France and the United Kingdom certainly provide no guarantee that the defendant
will not flee to a third country from which, even if she can be located, extradition may be
impossible. Courts have recognized that lack of an effective means of extradition can increase a
defendant’s flight risk, and have cited such facts as a relevant consideration in detaining defendants
pending trial. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at *2 (6th Cir.
Dec. 12, 2000); Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433,
443 (D.N.J. 2007) (“The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of
detention.”). Beyond being impossible to guarantee, extradition is typically a lengthy,
19
DOJ-OGR-00002183
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document