{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "20-cr-0080",
    "date": "July 14, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "any person or the community posed by pre-trial release. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court considered these factors before concluding that no conditions of release could reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. And the first and fourth factors remain unchanged. As already noted, the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and it is undisputed that the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment weighs in favor of continued detention. On the other hand, the Government has not advanced any evidence that the Defendant poses a danger to any person or to the community, a factor that weighs against detention. The Defendant's arguments therefore focus on the second and third factors. As explained below, neither the arguments put forth in the Defendant's renewed motion for bail nor the evidence she submitted in conjunction with her motion rebut the Court's conclusions, and the Court continues to find, after again applying these factors, that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings. 1. The Weight of the Evidence The Court will address the strength of the Government's case first. The Defendant argues that the Government lacks any meaningful documentary corroboration of the witness testimony and that the discovery produced to date has included only a \"small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy.\" Def. Mot. at 5. And she claims, as a result, that the Government overstated the strength of its case in advance of the July 14, 2020 bail hearing. See id. at 30 33. So she argues that the second § 3142(g) factor supports release. The Court disagrees. Arguing that the case against her \"is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified,\" the Defendant contends that the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "any person or the community posed by pre-trial release. See Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). At the July 14, 2020 bail hearing, the Court considered these factors before concluding that no conditions of release could reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. And the first and fourth factors remain unchanged. As already noted, the Defendant is charged with offenses involving minor victims, and it is undisputed that the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the Superseding Indictment weighs in favor of continued detention. On the other hand, the Government has not advanced any evidence that the Defendant poses a danger to any person or to the community, a factor that weighs against detention. The Defendant's arguments therefore focus on the second and third factors. As explained below, neither the arguments put forth in the Defendant's renewed motion for bail nor the evidence she submitted in conjunction with her motion rebut the Court's conclusions, and the Court continues to find, after again applying these factors, that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Weight of the Evidence The Court will address the strength of the Government's case first. The Defendant argues that the Government lacks any meaningful documentary corroboration of the witness testimony and that the discovery produced to date has included only a \"small number of documents from the time period of the conspiracy.\" Def. Mot. at 5. And she claims, as a result, that the Government overstated the strength of its case in advance of the July 14, 2020 bail hearing. See id. at 30 33. So she argues that the second § 3142(g) factor supports release. The Court disagrees. Arguing that the case against her \"is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified,\" the Defendant contends that the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 14, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cr-0080",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001218"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail hearing. The text is mostly clear, but there are some redactions and annotations at the top of the page that are not legible."
}