Epstein Secrets

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

s within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consid

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

s within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consid

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

s within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consid

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

s within the `special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir. 1987)). "The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consid

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

icate finding which reflects a misperception of a legal rule applicable to the particular factor involved." Id. at 319-20 (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 197 (2d Cir. 1987)). That is, "even if the court's finding of a historical fact relevant to that factor is not clearly erroneous, [t