DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
764 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
7
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
764 KB
Summary
This legal document argues for the continued pretrial detention (remand) of Mr. Epstein. It cites legal precedents establishing a strong presumption of detention for defendants charged with certain serious offenses, arguing this presumption is not easily overcome. The document concludes by highlighting that the U.S. Pretrial Services Department, after interviewing Mr. Epstein, issued a report on July 8, 2019, recommending to the court that he remain in custody.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant |
Subject of a Pretrial Services report and interview, with a recommendation that he continue to be remanded.
|
| Stone |
Named party in the case citation 'United States v. Stone'.
|
|
| Martir |
Named party in the case citation 'Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144'.
|
|
| Dominguez |
Named party in the case citation 'United States v. Dominguez'.
|
|
| Hir |
Named party in the case citation 'United States v. Hir'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in relation to its 'substantive judgment' and 'findings' regarding the detention of certain classes of offe...
|
| U.S. Pretrial Services Department | government agency |
Recommends to the Court that Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded.
|
| Pretrial Services | government agency |
Conducted an interview of Mr. Epstein and issued a report dated July 8, 2019.
|
| D.D.C. | court |
Mentioned in a case citation: (D.D.C. May 22, 2019).
|
| 6th Cir. | court |
Mentioned in a case citation: (6th Cir. 2010).
|
| 7th Cir. | court |
Mentioned in a case citation: (7th Cir. 1986).
|
| 9th Cir. | court |
Mentioned in a case citation: (9th Cir. 2008).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-07-08
The Pretrial Services report was issued, recommending Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded.
prior to 2019-07-08
Pretrial Services conducted an interview of Mr. Epstein.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of an offense: 'Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into t...
|
Relationships (1)
The U.S. Pretrial Services Department interviewed Mr. Epstein and issued a report to the court recommending his continued detention.
Key Quotes (5)
"reflects Congress’s substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial."Source
— United States v. Stone
(Describing the legal basis for the presumption of remand.)
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
Quote #1
"is not erased."Source
— United States v. Dominguez
(Explaining that the presumption of remand is not erased even if the defendant presents evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
Quote #2
"Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence."Source
— United States v. Hir
(Clarifying how the presumption of remand should be treated by the court.)
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
Quote #3
"The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses—not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption . . . to vanish upon any showing . . . , courts would be giving too little deference to Congress’ findings regarding this class"Source
— Martir
(Arguing against easily dismissing the presumption of remand.)
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
Quote #4
"[t]here is no condition or combination of conditions that [can]"Source
— The Pretrial Services report
(The conclusion of the Pretrial Services report regarding the possibility of Mr. Epstein's release.)
DOJ-OGR-00000484.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,171 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 13 of 33
*10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019). The presumption of remand “reflects Congress’s substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.” United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Other serious offenses that are accompanied by the presumption of remand are: Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201); Aggravated Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2241); Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242); Offenses Resulting in Death (18 U.S.C. § 2245); Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Selling or Buying of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).
The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the jurisdiction, the presumption “is not erased.” See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). “Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence.” United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 (“The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses—not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption . . . to vanish upon any showing . . . , courts would be giving too little deference to Congress’ findings regarding this class) (emphasis in original).
• The U.S. Pretrial Services Department Recommends To The Court That Mr. Epstein Continue to Be Remanded
The Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, concludes, following Pretrial Services’ interview of Mr. Epstein, that “[t]here is no condition or combination of conditions that [can]
13
DOJ-OGR-00000484
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document