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

foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr

d 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. [6,7] To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no condi

foreign countries without extradition dem- onstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight"); United States v. Epstein, 155 F.Supp2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defen- dant's lack of ties to the United States and his extensive ties to Brazil with which no extraditio

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

foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr

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

foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition tr

d 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. [6,7] To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that "that no condi

foreign countries without extradition dem- onstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight"); United States v. Epstein, 155 F.Supp2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defen- dant's lack of ties to the United States and his extensive ties to Brazil with which no extraditio

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

foreign countries without extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight." ); United States v. Epstein. 155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001 ) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of tics to the United States and his extensive tics to Brazil with which no extradition t