{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "07/24/19",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 28 of 74\n1 presumption of remand maintains. And this is one of those\n2 cases.\n3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: So why is that?\n5 MR. WEINBERG: Interestingly, if I can point out\n6 another provision in the Bail Reform Act, and this is 3142(c).\n7 At the very end of the set of conditions, the Congress in 1984,\n8 which was essentially revolutionizing the criteria for release,\n9 says that: \"In any case that involves a minor victim under\" --\n10 and they quote a series of statutes, including 1591 -- \"any\n11 release order shall contain at minimum a condition of\n12 electronic monitoring, a curfew, and other conditions.\"\n13 So Congress recognized that despite the presumption,\n14 which the law says is rebuttable and is more a burden of\n15 production than an ultimate burden of persuasion issue,\n16 Congress understood that defendants charged with 1591 would be\n17 released under conditions at the discretion of the court and\n18 that if they were --\n19 THE COURT: I think they understood that they could be\n20 released, not that they would be, otherwise, they wouldn't have\n21 written that presumption.\n22 MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely.\n23 THE COURT: So could you share any insight why,\n24 notwithstanding -- and I don't disagree with you. Bail is the\n25 norm rather than the exception. But we toiled up -- I don't\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000538",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 28 of 74",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 presumption of remand maintains. And this is one of those\n2 cases.\n3 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: So why is that?\n5 MR. WEINBERG: Interestingly, if I can point out\n6 another provision in the Bail Reform Act, and this is 3142(c).\n7 At the very end of the set of conditions, the Congress in 1984,\n8 which was essentially revolutionizing the criteria for release,\n9 says that: \"In any case that involves a minor victim under\" --\n10 and they quote a series of statutes, including 1591 -- \"any\n11 release order shall contain at minimum a condition of\n12 electronic monitoring, a curfew, and other conditions.\"\n13 So Congress recognized that despite the presumption,\n14 which the law says is rebuttable and is more a burden of\n15 production than an ultimate burden of persuasion issue,\n16 Congress understood that defendants charged with 1591 would be\n17 released under conditions at the discretion of the court and\n18 that if they were --\n19 THE COURT: I think they understood that they could be\n20 released, not that they would be, otherwise, they wouldn't have\n21 written that presumption.\n22 MR. WEINBERG: Absolutely.\n23 THE COURT: So could you share any insight why,\n24 notwithstanding -- and I don't disagree with you. Bail is the\n25 norm rather than the exception. But we toiled up -- I don't",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000538",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. WEINBERG"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/24/19",
      "1984"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 36",
      "3142(c)",
      "1591",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000538"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}