Epstein Secrets

elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at

Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, we have no occasion to consider whether it would be `contrary

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 law of the statute, by its structure, favors release. The Supreme Court has and the Second Circuit has advised us that a very limited number of people should be detained prior to trial because of the statute's structure, and the government nowher

n that never shifts, has not made a showing as required, that our client is a risk of flight. When you consider the risk, as Judge Raggi put it, in Sabhnani, the actual risk of flight, not fantasy and not speculation, when you consider that the only factors they really point to are ones that the cases

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 law of the statute, by its structure, favors release. The Supreme Court has and the Second Circuit has advised us that a very limited number of people should be detained prior to trial because of the statute's structure, and the government nowher

n that never shifts, has not made a showing as required, that our client is a risk of flight. When you consider the risk, as Judge Raggi put it, in Sabhnani, the actual risk of flight, not fantasy and not speculation, when you consider that the only factors they really point to are ones that the cases

ed provides the motive for him do so and is another significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987). So too is the strength of the evidence, detailed above and in the Government's Detention Memo. Indeed, that evidence, already robust less th

Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, we have no occasion to consider whether it would be `contrary

n to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a def

WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020) 10 United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) 18 United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) 9, 10, 16, 18 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) 9 United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1

t that presumption by coming forward with evidence that [she] does not pose ... a risk of flight." See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321,

is case. (Gov. Mem. at 4-5.) This oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit "require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a finding of risk of fli

nditions, ' See United States v. Boustani, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656, at •1 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019). 2 United States v. &Ottani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). 4 EFTA00024836 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 19-1018, Document 61, 08/01/2019. 2621

subject to conditions of home confinement in which, among other things, the defendant pays for private armed security guards.' In United States v. Sabhnani, we first 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). 518 U.S.C. § 3142(e). 6 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 76 & n.16. ' Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75. 8

Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, EFTA00030252 --- PAGE BREAK --- Honorable Richard M. Berman

) (Bianco, J.) (collecting cases). The Second Circuit has never directly addressed this issue. See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 78 n.18 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The government has not argued and, therefore, EFTA00030252 --- PAGE BREAK --- Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge