Epstein Secrets

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

and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). "Only in rare circumstances should release be denied." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts as to the propriety of release are resolved in the defendant's favor. See United States v. Chen, 8

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

and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). "Only in rare circumstances should release be denied." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts as to the propriety of release are resolved in the defendant's favor. See United States v. Chen, 8

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

ire careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate [of the Bail Reform Act] has been respected." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Because the consequence of error — the unjust deprivation of liberty from an individual who is

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

06 (2d . . 1985); United States I. Portes, 786 F. d 758, 765 (7thtir. 1985); United States Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985); United States Motamedi, 767 F.2d 140 , 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). 26.5 Detention hearing westlaw query 18 +S 3142(F) /P 26.2 OR JENCKS At a detention hearing, "the rules conc