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

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

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

d States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering ... [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. [6,7] To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no condi

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

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

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

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

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

d States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering ... [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. [6,7] To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no condi

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

ed States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness tampering .. . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no conditions cou

18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) II, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986) 10 United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 21 United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Ci

ngs, and the Government is entitled to present evidence by way of proffer, among other means. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (Government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings). Where a judicial officer concludes after a