{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "3", "document_number": "22", "date": "July 16, 2019", "document_type": "court document", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 9\n\nHon. Richard M. Berman\nJuly 16, 2019\nPage 3\n\nplain text - expressly providing that the presumption is \"[s]ubject to rebuttal,\" and otherwise mandating bail on the \"least restrictive\" conditions that reasonably assure the defendant's presence and community safety - on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail - all based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly shouldn't be singled out for worse treatment - in effect, categorically disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case - on the basis of their net worth.\n\nSecond, it bears emphasis that the presumption is hardly an insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.3 To the contrary, courts have determined that there are suitable conditions under which\n\n3 E.g., US v. Brinson, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011); US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000433", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 9", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "Hon. Richard M. Berman\nJuly 16, 2019\nPage 3", "position": "top" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "plain text - expressly providing that the presumption is \"[s]ubject to rebuttal,\" and otherwise mandating bail on the \"least restrictive\" conditions that reasonably assure the defendant's presence and community safety - on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail - all based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly shouldn't be singled out for worse treatment - in effect, categorically disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case - on the basis of their net worth.", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "Second, it bears emphasis that the presumption is hardly an insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.3 To the contrary, courts have determined that there are suitable conditions under which", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "3 E.g., US v. Brinson, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011); US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).", "position": "bottom" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000433", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "Richard M. Berman" ], "organizations": [], "locations": [ "Oklahoma", "Tennessee", "California" ], "dates": [ "July 16, 2019", "February 8, 2013", "April 13, 2011", "2007" ], "reference_numbers": [ "1:19-cr-00490-RMB", "Document 22", "§ 1591", "No. 13-CR-04-GKF", "No. 3:10-cr-00260", "523 F. Supp. 2d 1025", "DOJ-OGR-00000433" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a memorandum or brief, discussing the presumption of bail in certain cases. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of a 9-page document." }