| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1985-01-01 | Legal case | The court case United States v. Motamedi, which established principles regarding pretrial detenti... | 9th Cir. | View |
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court opinion or brief, dated February 28, 2023. The author argues against the retroactive application of a statute (ยง 3283) by analyzing legislative intent, referencing Senator Leahy's remarks and Congress's rejection of a specific retroactivity provision in a 2003 bill. The argument is supported by comparing the rejected language to similar provisions in other statutes (Pub.L. 107-56 and Pub.L. 101-647) to conclude that applying the statute retroactively fails the legal test established in the Landgraf case.
This page from a legal document argues against pretrial detention by citing several court precedents. It asserts that constitutional protections and the Bail Reform Act require that any doubts about releasing a defendant be resolved in their favor. The text emphasizes that even if a defendant is deemed a flight risk, the law still favors release under the least restrictive conditions possible.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity