DOJ-OGR-00001218.jpg
485 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
485 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's renewed motion for bail, filed on August 30, 2020. The defendant argues for release, claiming the government's case is weak, lacks documentary evidence, and relies almost solely on the testimony of three unidentified accusers. The Court disagrees with the defendant's assessment and reaffirms its earlier decision to deny bail, finding that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future proceedings.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of a bail hearing and renewed motion for bail, arguing for release based on the perceived weakness of the...
|
| three accusers | Accusers/Witnesses |
Mentioned as the primary source of evidence against the Defendant, whose recollections form the basis of the case acc...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Government agency |
The judicial body that considered the factors for bail, denied release previously, and is now addressing the Defendan...
|
| The Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case against the Defendant, whose case strength is being challenged by the Defendant.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07-14
A bail hearing was held where the Court considered factors for release and concluded that no conditions could assure the Defendant's appearance.
Relationships (2)
The Government is prosecuting the Defendant, who is arguing against the strength of the Government's case in a motion for bail.
The accusers' recollections form the basis of the legal case against the Defendant.
Key Quotes (2)
"small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy."Source
— The Defendant
(Quoted from the Defendant's motion (Def. Mot. at 5) to argue that the Government's case lacks documentary evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00001218.jpg
Quote #1
"is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified,"Source
— The Defendant
(The Defendant's argument that the case against her is weak because it relies on witness testimony rather than hard evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00001218.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,034 characters)
Case: 20-07003-AJN Document 1062 Filed 08/30/20 Page 9 of 522
any person or the community posed by pre-trial release. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court considered these factors before concluding that no conditions of release could reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. And the first and fourth factors remain unchanged. As already noted, the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and it is undisputed that the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment weighs in favor of continued detention. On the other hand, the Government has not advanced any evidence that the Defendant poses a danger to any person or to the community, a factor that weighs against detention. The Defendant’s arguments therefore focus on the second and third factors.
As explained below, neither the arguments put forth in the Defendant’s renewed motion for bail nor the evidence she submitted in conjunction with her motion rebut the Court’s conclusions, and the Court continues to find, after again applying these factors, that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings.
1. The Weight of the Evidence
The Court will address the strength of the Government’s case first. The Defendant argues that the Government lacks any meaningful documentary corroboration of the witness testimony and that the discovery produced to date has included only a “small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy.” Def. Mot. at 5. And she claims, as a result, that the Government overstated the strength of its case in advance of the July 14, 2020 bail hearing. See id. at 30 33. So she argues that the second § 3142(g) factor supports release.
The Court disagrees. Arguing that the case against her “is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified,” the Defendant contends that the
9
DOJ-OGR-00001218
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document