Epstein Secrets

s hiding and we have evidence, your Honor, that the defendant was making plans to leave the country. That is the situation, frankly, in the U.S. v. Zarger case, the case by Judge Gleeson in 2000, that the government cites in its brief, but of course doesn't discuss the facts. There is nothing to that

E COURT REPORTER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Kristen Carannante. THE COURT: Good afternoon, and thank you so much. We also have on the audio line Pretrial Services Officer Leah Harmon and -- THE PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: Hello, your Honor. Good afternoon. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. We are here to

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

observed, "home detention with electronic monitoring does not prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States v. Zarger, No. 00- CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *I (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the Defendant now represents that she would be released

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

At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce his head start should he decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with ele

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

At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would reduce his head start should he decide to cut the bracelet and flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with ele

t the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correction center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. The Court should order him detained. BACKGROUND A. Overview and Offens

been removed. At best, home confinement and electronic monitoring would merely reduce his head start should he decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home dete