{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "6",
    "date": "07/11/19",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 9 of 16\n\nFinally, the government fails to consider the doctrine of pre-indictment delay, inasmuch as the statute of limitations does not fully define a defendant's rights with respect to delays that occurred prior to the indictment. See generally United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971). Here, the delays of 14 years from the last alleged act and 12 years since Mr. Epstein signed the NPA are extraordinary. If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government will have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender 10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay.\n\nIII. The government fails to meet its burden of proving that no combination of conditions will assure Mr. Epstein's appearance and public safety\n\nAn analysis of the relevant statutory factors and case law supports pretrial release. Even should the Court conclude, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, that the defendant presents a risk of flight, the foregoing combination of conditions virtually guarantees his appearance as required. Crucially, while it is always possible to hypothesize risks, the statutory standard requires only a reasonable assurance that the defendant, if released, will appear. The conditions proposed above, including electronic GPS monitoring, surrender of Mr. Epstein's passport, deregistration and/or grounding of Mr. Epstein's private plane, and a substantial personal bond (including posting of personal residence(s) and/or private jet as security to guarantee appearance) would extinguish any plausible risks. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained - his residence on East 71st Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in the United States (other than his Paris residence) and with his New York residence at risk due to the government's forfeiture allegation, Mr. Epstein would be sacrificing virtually everything he has worked for - including any collateral the Court requires he post to secure his appearance - if he were to flee and to disentitle himself to the defense of his property whether it would be at risk to forfeiture or for a bail violation.\n\nTo the extent there is any doubt regarding the proposed conditions, there is tremendous moral suasion provided by the posting of real and personal property of Mr. Epstein's brother, and his close personal friend of decades, who have offered to co-sign a surety bond to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance in Court as required. Indeed, Mr. Epstein's brother has agreed to pledge his family home, that he shares half the year with his 14-year-old daughter and 17-year-old son, in order to secure the bond. It is particularly telling that Mr. Epstein's brother, his only living immediate family member, as well as his close personal friend, are both willing to guarantee his appearance, notwithstanding the widespread negative publicity of Mr. Epstein that has dominated the news cycle since his arrest.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00000282",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 9 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the government fails to consider the doctrine of pre-indictment delay, inasmuch as the statute of limitations does not fully define a defendant's rights with respect to delays that occurred prior to the indictment. See generally United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971). Here, the delays of 14 years from the last alleged act and 12 years since Mr. Epstein signed the NPA are extraordinary. If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government will have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender 10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The government fails to meet its burden of proving that no combination of conditions will assure Mr. Epstein's appearance and public safety",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "An analysis of the relevant statutory factors and case law supports pretrial release. Even should the Court conclude, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, that the defendant presents a risk of flight, the foregoing combination of conditions virtually guarantees his appearance as required. Crucially, while it is always possible to hypothesize risks, the statutory standard requires only a reasonable assurance that the defendant, if released, will appear. The conditions proposed above, including electronic GPS monitoring, surrender of Mr. Epstein's passport, deregistration and/or grounding of Mr. Epstein's private plane, and a substantial personal bond (including posting of personal residence(s) and/or private jet as security to guarantee appearance) would extinguish any plausible risks. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained - his residence on East 71st Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back) that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in the United States (other than his Paris residence) and with his New York residence at risk due to the government's forfeiture allegation, Mr. Epstein would be sacrificing virtually everything he has worked for - including any collateral the Court requires he post to secure his appearance - if he were to flee and to disentitle himself to the defense of his property whether it would be at risk to forfeiture or for a bail violation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent there is any doubt regarding the proposed conditions, there is tremendous moral suasion provided by the posting of real and personal property of Mr. Epstein's brother, and his close personal friend of decades, who have offered to co-sign a surety bond to ensure Mr. Epstein's appearance in Court as required. Indeed, Mr. Epstein's brother has agreed to pledge his family home, that he shares half the year with his 14-year-old daughter and 17-year-old son, in order to secure the bond. It is particularly telling that Mr. Epstein's brother, his only living immediate family member, as well as his close personal friend, are both willing to guarantee his appearance, notwithstanding the widespread negative publicity of Mr. Epstein that has dominated the news cycle since his arrest.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000282",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Epstein's brother",
      "Mr. Epstein's friend"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Paris",
      "East 71st Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/11/19",
      "10 years ago"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 6",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000282",
      "404 U.S. 307"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Mr. Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 16."
}