Epstein Secrets

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def