DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
772 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
6
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (page 31 of document 100)
File Size:
772 KB
Summary
This document is page 31 of a court filing (Document 100) from December 18, 2020, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text presents a legal argument supporting the detention of the defendant by distinguishing her case from previous instances where bail was granted (Khashoggi, Bodmer) and comparing her to cases where detention was upheld due to flight risk and foreign ties (Boustani, Patrick Ho). Notably, it cites a 2001 case, 'United States v. Epstein,' as precedent for denying bail based on dual citizenship and lack of extradition treaties; however, this 2001 citation likely refers to a different defendant named Epstein (in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) rather than Jeffrey Epstein.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant (Current Case) |
Implicitly Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330; the subject of the detention/bail analysis.
|
| Khashoggi | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in United States v. Khashoggi; example of a defendant released pending trial.
|
| Bodmer | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in United States v. Bodmer; example of a defendant granted bail after consenting to extradition.
|
| Boustani | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in United States v. Boustani; example of a defendant detained due to flight risk and foreign ties.
|
| Patrick Ho | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in United States v. Patrick Ho; example of a defendant detained due to flight risk and lack of community ties.
|
| Epstein | Defendant (Cited Case - 2001) |
Cited in United States v. Epstein (E.D. Pa. 2001); a different Epstein used as legal precedent regarding flight risk,...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Various districts cited: S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., E.D. Pa.
|
|
| Government |
Refers to the US Government/Prosecution in the various cited cases.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002192).
|
Timeline (6 events)
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction for arraignments and extradition.
|
|
|
Location related to the Khashoggi extradition waiver.
|
|
|
Citizenship location for defendant in the cited 2001 Epstein case.
|
|
|
Citizenship location and lack of extradition treaty mentioned in the cited 2001 Epstein case.
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant (Maxwell)
→
Legal Distinction
→
Khashoggi/Bodmer
Court states cases cited by defendant (like Khashoggi and Bodmer) are 'readily distinguishable' from her situation.
Defendant (Maxwell)
→
Legal Comparison
→
Boustani/Ho/Epstein(2001)
Court cites these cases as support for 'detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant.'
Key Quotes (6)
"several of the cases cited by the defendant are readily distinguishable."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #1
"Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #2
"support in the case law for detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #3
"minimal ties to the United States"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #4
"extensive ties to foreign countries without extradition"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #5
"finding that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil... weighed in favor of detention"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002192(1).jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,295 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 100 Filed 12/18/20 Page 31 of 36
(Tr. 87). Following the analysis the Court has already conducted, several of the cases cited by the
defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048,
1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other
things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that
he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s Government
committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS),
2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant
arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the
Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s
financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”). And there is support in the case law for
detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v.
Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir.
Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk
of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible
sentence, strength of Government’s evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent
international travel, “minimal” ties to the United States, and “extensive ties to foreign countries
without extradition”); United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant’s risk of flight and citing the strength of
the Government’s evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and “potential ties in foreign
jurisdictions”); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding
that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property
interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the
fact that defendant and his wife owned “substantial” property and other significant assets in the
defendant are readily distinguishable. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048,
1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (in ordering defendant released pending trial, noting, among other
things, that the defendant not only waived his right to appeal extradition in Switzerland, but that
he traveled immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country’s Government
committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS),
2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant
arrested abroad had already consented to extradition to the United States and finding that the
Government—whose argument was “based, in large part, on speculation” as to the defendant’s
financial resources—had “failed to meet its burden”). And there is support in the case law for
detaining individuals in comparable situations to the defendant. See, e.g., United States v.
Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246, 252-55 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir.
Mar. 7, 2019) (ordering defendant detained pending trial and finding that defendant posed a risk
of flight based on several factors, including seriousness of the charged offenses, lengthy possible
sentence, strength of Government’s evidence, access to substantial financial resources, frequent
international travel, “minimal” ties to the United States, and “extensive ties to foreign countries
without extradition”); United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
2018) (ordering defendant detained based on defendant’s risk of flight and citing the strength of
the Government’s evidence, lack of meaningful community ties, and “potential ties in foreign
jurisdictions”); United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 324-326 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding
that defendant’s dual citizenship in Germany and Brazil, lucrative employment and property
interests, and lack of an extradition treaty with Brazil weighed in favor of detention despite the
fact that defendant and his wife owned “substantial” property and other significant assets in the
28
DOJ-OGR-00002192
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document