{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "11",
    "date": "July 12, 2019",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 4 of 14\n\nHonorable Richard M. Berman\nUnited States District Judge\nJuly 12, 2019\nPage 4\n\nARGUMENT\n\nThe Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case for the following reasons, among others:\n\nI. Victims Seek Detention\n\nPursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), a crime victim has the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving release. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and counsel identified through this investigation in connection with the argument regarding bail.\n\nMultiple victims and/or their counsel have asked the Government to seek detention (and to inform the Court of their views in that respect) for multiple reasons. First, they believe that the defendant's continued detention is necessary under the CVRA's right to be reasonably protected from the accused. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1). They have specifically conveyed to the Government that they would be fearful for their safety if the defendant were released. For the reasons articulated herein, the Government believes those concerns to be well-founded.\n\nAdditionally, certain victims have asked the Government to advise the Court that they are specifically concerned about the defendant's proposal to be released even if under conditions that included home detention and full-time private guards. They believe it would be unfair to victims of a wealthy defendant, like Epstein, if he were to be given greater freedoms than others would be in similar circumstances, and that such an arrangement would be inconsistent with their rights. They specifically asked the Government to advise the Court that they believed such an arrangement could result in harassment and abuse by the defendant.3\n\nII. The Defendant's Proposal Does Nothing to Mitigate His Flight Risk\n\nEach of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk—the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant—counsel strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant's proposed package would do nothing whatsoever to mitigate those risks.\n\nA. Defendant Proposes No Infringement Upon His Ability to Use his Vast Wealth to Flee\n\nIt might not be immediately apparent to a reader of the Release Motion that the defendant is extravagantly wealthy and worth, according to records relating to the defendant recently obtained by the Government from a financial institution (\"Institution-1\"), more than $500 million.\n\n3 The Government is aware of at least one additional attorney for a victim who has publicly stated that her client supports the pretrial detention of the defendant. The Government is unaware of any victim who has expressed support for the defendant being granted pretrial release on bail.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000332",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 4 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Honorable Richard M. Berman\nUnited States District Judge\nJuly 12, 2019\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case for the following reasons, among others:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Victims Seek Detention",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), a crime victim has the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving release. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and counsel identified through this investigation in connection with the argument regarding bail.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Multiple victims and/or their counsel have asked the Government to seek detention (and to inform the Court of their views in that respect) for multiple reasons. First, they believe that the defendant's continued detention is necessary under the CVRA's right to be reasonably protected from the accused. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1). They have specifically conveyed to the Government that they would be fearful for their safety if the defendant were released. For the reasons articulated herein, the Government believes those concerns to be well-founded.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, certain victims have asked the Government to advise the Court that they are specifically concerned about the defendant's proposal to be released even if under conditions that included home detention and full-time private guards. They believe it would be unfair to victims of a wealthy defendant, like Epstein, if he were to be given greater freedoms than others would be in similar circumstances, and that such an arrangement would be inconsistent with their rights. They specifically asked the Government to advise the Court that they believed such an arrangement could result in harassment and abuse by the defendant.3",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The Defendant's Proposal Does Nothing to Mitigate His Flight Risk",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk—the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant—counsel strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant's proposed package would do nothing whatsoever to mitigate those risks.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Defendant Proposes No Infringement Upon His Ability to Use his Vast Wealth to Flee",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It might not be immediately apparent to a reader of the Release Motion that the defendant is extravagantly wealthy and worth, according to records relating to the defendant recently obtained by the Government from a financial institution (\"Institution-1\"), more than $500 million.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 The Government is aware of at least one additional attorney for a victim who has publicly stated that her client supports the pretrial detention of the defendant. The Government is unaware of any victim who has expressed support for the defendant being granted pretrial release on bail.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000332",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Richard M. Berman",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 12, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 11",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000332"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}