mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001109.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "20-cr-330",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Cased 20-cr0330 Document 192 Filed 03/24/20 Page 7 of 25\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)\n\nA prior determination that a defendant should not be released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering its decision in light of new information. To the contrary, a bail hearing\n\nmay be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).\n\nCourts have relied on § 3142(f) in revisiting bail determinations where the defendant presents material testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the time of the initial hearing, even if the underlying facts might have been within the defendant's knowledge. For example, in United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court granted the defendant's request to reopen his bail hearing to present evidence of his immediate family's willingness to act as sureties for his release. Id. at 1207. The court held that although \"his immediate family and relatives were obviously known to\" the defendant at the time of his arrest, his inability to contact them and secure their appearance at his initial bail hearing justified reconsideration. Id.\n\nCourts also have found § 3142(f) satisfied where there is new information regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense—facts generally not known to a criminal defendant at the time of the initial hearing—particularly where the evidence undermines the government's prior representations to the Court regarding the strength of its case. See, e.g., United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)\n\n7\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001109",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Cased 20-cr0330 Document 192 Filed 03/24/20 Page 7 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A prior determination that a defendant should not be released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering its decision in light of new information. To the contrary, a bail hearing",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Courts have relied on § 3142(f) in revisiting bail determinations where the defendant presents material testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the time of the initial hearing, even if the underlying facts might have been within the defendant's knowledge. For example, in United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court granted the defendant's request to reopen his bail hearing to present evidence of his immediate family's willingness to act as sureties for his release. Id. at 1207. The court held that although \"his immediate family and relatives were obviously known to\" the defendant at the time of his arrest, his inability to contact them and secure their appearance at his initial bail hearing justified reconsideration. Id.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Courts also have found § 3142(f) satisfied where there is new information regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense—facts generally not known to a criminal defendant at the time of the initial hearing—particularly where the evidence undermines the government's prior representations to the Court regarding the strength of its case. See, e.g., United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001109",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "C.D. Cal.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/24/20",
      "1999",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cr-330",
      "Document 192",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001109"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail decision, with references to specific court cases and legal statutes. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}