Epstein Secrets

den of production, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful "that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that `a strong probability

he Court emphasized in its denial of the second motion for release on bail, the discrepancies between the information presented to the Court and to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the information presented to the Court in December 2020 raised significant concerns about candor. See Dec. Op. at 16. There remain

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

secure his release: I. Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence, with permission to leave only for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including (at the Court's discretion) the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances to ensure compliance. 2. Electroni

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

secure his release: I. Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence, with permission to leave only for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including (at the Court's discretion) the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances to ensure compliance. 2. Electroni

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

vices Agency in every judicial district and pre scribing duties); E.D. Mich. Local Crim. R. 5.1(b), 10.1(b). This recommendation is the result of a Pretrial Services Officer's (1) interview of the defendant, (2) receipt of information from the government and defense counsel, and (3) i ndependent (though brief an

d be limited to appearances in Court, meetings with 5 EFTA00013311 --- PAGE BREAK --- counsel, medical visits, and upon approval by the Court or Pretrial Services. Id. at 2-3. Furthermore, the Defendant would have on-premises security guards that she would pay for who would prevent her from leaving the reside

"remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). As a result, "[a] judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal

the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can

.3d 125, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2000) (government entitled to proceed by proffer in detention hearings); Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 542 (same); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986) (same). Where a judicial officer concludes after a hearing that "no condition or combination of conditions will

den of production, the presumption "remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144). The Court is mindful "that Congress has found that these offenders pose special risks of flight, and that `a strong probability

he Court emphasized in its denial of the second motion for release on bail, the discrepancies between the information presented to the Court and to Pretrial Services in July 2020 and the information presented to the Court in December 2020 raised significant concerns about candor. See Dec. Op. at 16. There remain