Epstein Secrets

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sablznani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 EFTA0005

and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). "Only in rare circumstances should release be denied." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts as to the propriety of release are resolved in the defendant's favor. See United States v. Chen, 8

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 EFTA00097

and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). "Only in rare circumstances should release be denied." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts as to the propriety of release are resolved in the defendant's favor. See United States v. Chen, 8

to flee. See United Stares v. Zinger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 8 EFTA00093087 C6sesel.213-Thilg240401Mt Db~t9tad420Ei1O3 tth M10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . lim

ire careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate [of the Bail Reform Act] has been respected." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Because the consequence of error — the unjust deprivation of liberty from an individual who is

Detention 551 EFTA00191620 there are no such conditions by a "preponderance of the evidence." See United States I Tedder, 903 F. Supp. 344, 345 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)citing United States v. Martin 782 F.2d 1141, 1146 (2d Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). It is not necessary that the government prove both fli

06 (2d . . 1985); United States I. Portes, 786 F. d 758, 765 (7thtir. 1985); United States Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985); United States Motamedi, 767 F.2d 140 , 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). 26.5 Detention hearing westlaw query 18 +S 3142(F) /P 26.2 OR JENCKS At a detention hearing, "the rules conc