{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "2017-00330",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "was the result of the Defendant's misestimation rather than misdirection. And while the Defendant's concerns regarding her spouse's privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant's representations to Pretrial Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the third factor continues to weigh in favor of detention. C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted In light of the reasons stated above, the Government has again met its burden of persuasion by \"a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.\" English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the § 3142(g) factors into account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the Defendant's proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court's original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered. As already noted, the Defendant now proposes a $28.5 million bail package, which includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse 16 DOJ-OGR-00001225",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "was the result of the Defendant's misestimation rather than misdirection. And while the Defendant's concerns regarding her spouse's privacy are not insignificant, she fails to furnish any explanation as to why those concerns led her to misrepresent key facts to Pretrial Services and, by extension, the Court. In sum, the evidence of a lack of candor is, if anything, stronger now than in July 2020, as it is clear to the Court that the Defendant's representations to Pretrial Services were woefully incomplete. That lack of candor raises significant concerns as to whether the Court has now been provided a full and accurate picture of her finances and as to the Defendant's willingness to abide by any set of conditions of release. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the third factor continues to weigh in favor of detention.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Pretrial detention continues to be warranted",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In light of the reasons stated above, the Government has again met its burden of persuasion by \"a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a risk of flight.\" English, 629 F.3d at 319 (quoting Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436). Taking the § 3142(g) factors into account, the Court concludes that the presumption in favor of detention, the nature and characteristics of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the Defendant all weigh in favor of detention. Along similar lines, the Government has also shown, and the Court concludes for the reasons outlined below, that the Defendant's proposed bail package cannot reasonably assure her appearance. Thus, the Court's original conclusion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that no set of conditions can reasonably assure her future appearance remains unaltered. As already noted, the Defendant now proposes a $28.5 million bail package, which includes a $22.5 million personal recognizance bond co-signed by the Defendant and her spouse",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001225",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Pretrial Services",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "$28.5 million",
      "$22.5 million",
      "2017-00330",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001225"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a defendant's bail hearing. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 16 of a larger filing."
}