Epstein Secrets

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 weight

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

es forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against release, to be wei

smit Information About a Mi- nor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3XE). (121 The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, EFTA00066200 316 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger t

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 weight

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

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 weight

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

es forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against release, to be wei

smit Information About a Mi- nor (18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3XE). (121 The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, EFTA00076824 316 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger t

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 weight

nably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(eX3XE) (emphasis added); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause that the defendant c

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ption in favor of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756

he mmunity. See, e.g., Smith, 79 F.3d at 1210-1211 citing United StatesDillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991); Suppa, 799 F.2d at 119; United taus, Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 706 n.7 (7th Cir. 1986); Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 147i-79; United States `Contreras, 776 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1985). nited Stata Hazime, 762

hould consider those legislative findings among the other factors to be weighed in deciding whether a defendant should be detained. United States'. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted) (discussing 'A grand jury indic nt provides the probable cause required by the sta